Oral Answers to Questions

HEALTH

The Secretary of State was asked—

Primary Care

Lynne Jones: If he will make a statement on the implementation of the proposals in the NHS next stage review final report on equitable access to primary care.

Alan Johnson: Primary care trusts continue to make good progress in securing more than 100 new GP surgeries in under-doctored areas and 152 GP-led health centres, to be open to patients 12 hours a day, 365 days a year. Those services will improve access, extend choice and complement existing family doctor services.

Lynne Jones: According to a recent survey of people attending a mental health day centre in south Birmingham, 85 per cent. did not have a GP. That shocking result demonstrates the need to expand primary care services and fill the gaps, so the Government's increased investment is welcome. However, the confusion about the rules on expanding those services is not so welcome. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to clear up the confusion by explaining the difference between giving money to existing GP practices to expand, which is apparently not allowed, and GP practices bidding to provide additional services, which is allowed?

Alan Johnson: Yes, I am happy to do that. We are giving £100 million to all GP practices this year to improve the care that they offer patients. On under-doctored areas, we believe that there is a genuine need in the most deprived areas—the 25 per cent. of primary care trusts with the worst provision—to provide new services and new centres, not only for GP services, although they will be GP practices, but for the facilities to screen, and to deal with issues such as smoking cessation and all the problems that health inequality encapsulates. That is not to say that we are not also giving extra money to existing GP surgeries, but we believe that we need new services, some for the capacity reasons that my hon. Friend mentioned.

Patrick Cormack: Apart from taking a well-deserved holiday, will the Secretary of State spend some time during the recess considering the sort of letters that primary care trusts send to those to whom they have to decline grants or treatment? Some are grossly insensitive and written in the most insensitive, bureaucratic language. Will he have a look at that?

Alan Johnson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for wishing me well on my holidays. I hope that on his holidays he will read the NHS constitution, which is out for consultation until 17 October. It includes a paragraph that relates precisely to the point that he makes. If a PCT decides that a drug that is outside the NICE process will not be approved, it should do that transparently. Under the constitution, patients will have a right to receive lucid and transparent information about the PCT's decision.

Paddy Tipping: But do a significant number of patients not want more flexibility about seeing their GP at weekends and in the evenings? In the 60th year of the NHS, should we not back the patients rather than the professionals?

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend is right. Incidentally, we now have the latest figures. Since concluding the agreement with the British Medical Association in April, in which we sought the extension of provision in the week and on Saturdays—we expect 50 per cent. of GP surgeries to offer that extended provision by the end of the year—we have already moved in the first couple of months to 28 per cent. coverage. That is what patients need, not least in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones): in Birmingham recently, patients had a specific concern about access to GP surgeries.

Sandra Gidley: Although the GP centres in under-doctored areas are welcome, does the Secretary of State agree that he has missed a trick on the GP-led health centres, which have been imposed on PCTs? If PCTs had a little more time, they could have consulted local communities and probably placed the GP-led health centres in areas where they were needed, and people would not feel quite so put upon.

Alan Johnson: I do not accept the hon. Lady's point. There is a genuine problem with capacity—we are not considering a zero-sum game. From next year, we want all men and women between the ages of 40 and 74 to come in on a call and recall basis under a vascular screening programme. When we announced that earlier this year, the BMA said it did not have the capacity. There is a genuine need for those services. Each PCT must consult on the new GP-led health centres, and they will be welcomed. As the  Health Service Journal said of the Opposition a couple of weeks ago, it is easy to campaign against closures but it takes a perverse genius to campaign against openings.

Geraldine Smith: Although the extra Government investment in GP services is most welcome, why is there not the flexibility to allow existing GP practices to expand to meet the need, rather than having to create a new practice, which could have the effect of destabilising existing GP services? That is a real concern to GPs in my constituency. This should be done in that way only if the primary care trust wants that, but the PCT in my area blames the Government; it says it would like to do it another way, but the Government will not allow it to do so. What is the true situation?

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend has raised this point with me, and a letter about the disgraceful attitude of the PCT is winging its way towards her. Although there may be numerous PCTs which are trying to duck this issue by blaming the Government, they are wrong. We are talking about the provision of care for their patients. My hon. Friend is talking about under-doctored areas, and they have been under-doctored for 60 years. If that was just a matter of handing over the money to the British Medical Association, which is what its political representatives on the Opposition Benches argue for, it would have been resolved years ago. We are saying that the new GP services are important for these areas as they are in the interests not only of patient care but of something I know my hon. Friend is passionate about: tackling health inequalities.

Mark Simmonds: We in this House all agree that there must be the highest standards of patient care, and the Darzi report rightly highlights the lack of accessible information about some GP practices, which hinders patient choice. However, this issue was identified in a previous Government report that was published two and a half years ago in January 2006, yet to date there has been minimal progress. Will the Secretary of State explain how patient care is to be improved, specifically via all-important innovation, when GPs do not have, and will not have, control of real budgets, the centralised target culture is to be maintained and extra tiers of regional bureaucracy are to be created via this report, instead of a responsive, patient-centric, outcome-based service?

Alan Johnson: There is obviously an audition on the Opposition Front Bench. There will be a reshuffle soon by the Leader of the Opposition, and with the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) away, this is the other shadow Ministers' chance to audition.
	Let me unpick the question a little. The argument that the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) uses is that GP practices somehow do not have any control over the situation. We negotiate with the BMA constantly. There are issues around improving patient care on which we agree with the BMA, and we are working closely with it to resolve them. The point about a bureaucracy emerging from the Darzi review is nonsense. The Darzi review takes into account the views of thousands of clinicians across the country, and it is about the opposite of this kind of bureaucracy. It says that with the right metrics—I apologise for using that dreadful term, but they use it—in place, quality can be measured and thus improved.
	On central targets, I pointed out in the last debate we had on this issue that 16 years after the Conservatives came to power, their Secretary of State for Health was setting a target of waiting no longer than 18 months for important clinical treatment. The fact that that will be 18 weeks maximum by the end of this year is a tribute to the NHS, but a necessary part of achieving that was the introduction of those targets.

Foundation Trusts (Local People)

Alun Michael: What assessment he has made of the progress made by NHS foundation trusts in recruiting local people as board members and engaging them in planning.

Ben Bradshaw: The 103 NHS foundation trusts have recruited more than 1.2 million members and more than 3,000 governors. Independent studies show that they have been successful in bringing decision making closer to their local communities.

Alun Michael: I thank the Minister for that reply. When I visited Homerton hospital in Hackney with Treasury officials last year, we were impressed by the way in which a wide membership of the local community was proving a source of inspiration to senior medical and other staff in the NHS trust. Has my hon. Friend taken note of the recommendations in the report prepared by Chris Ham and Peter Hunt, which says the potential that would arise from having more than 1 million members in these trusts could be fully engaged only if there was a sustained commitment of resources to members' services? Will he ensure that that wide engagement of the public is made a mainstream preoccupation within NHS trusts, and that this continues to be a success story?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes indeed. As I am sure my right hon. Friend will know, the legislation states that foundation trusts must engage with local communities, encourage local people to become members and ensure that their membership is representative. He cites one example, and I could give one from my constituency—my local foundation trust—where the engagement of local people has led the hospital to have objectives of eradicating all waiting by 2010, introducing single rooms for those who want them by 2012 and completely eradicating avoidable infections by 2010. That is an example of local people setting local priorities for an excellent local hospital.

Richard Taylor: The Minister will be aware of the Local Government Association's health commission report "Who's accountable for health?" It stresses the importance of local involvement networks—LINks—and overview and scrutiny committees, so will he ensure that foundation trust memberships fully engage with LINks and overview and scrutiny committees?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes. It is very important, of course, that foundation trust memberships do that, although the roles of overview and scrutiny committees and of LINks are slightly broader—they cover the whole of a local health economy—than the specific, narrow responsibility of foundation trust governors or members. It makes sense for them, and I hope that good foundation trust organisations take on the engagement that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Gisela Stuart: The group of people whose input can contribute greatly are those who have a bad experience and simply want to ensure that it does not happen again. Their desire to be involved may be a short one; they may want to be involved for less than a year. Will the Minister ensure that that group is not overlooked and that we do not end up with local involvement that becomes politicised, with a small "p"? We should use individual experiences, even though these people are difficult to recruit.

Ben Bradshaw: My hon. Friend has touched on something very close to my heart: the importance of ensuring that patients and staff complain, do not feel frightened of complaining and are supported in that complaints process. If she has not come across this, she might like to examine the excellent role played in many places by the patient advice and liaison services—PALS—system, which acts as an advocate and a navigator for people who want to ensure that something that has happened to them does not happen to someone else without their having to stay involved in the system on a long-term basis. She rightly says that many people just do not have the time or inclination to stay involved in that way.

Nicholas Winterton: What importance do the Government place on the appointment of really local people on the board of NHS foundation trusts? By "really local", I mean people who live in the core area of that trust. Are not such people really likely to be able to reflect the view of the local people about the quality and extent of the service being provided at their hospital?

Ben Bradshaw: As I have said, the trusts are under a legal obligation to ensure that their board is representative of the local community. The hon. Gentleman might have an example of a foundation trust's board of directors that is not as representative as it might be, but I suggest to him that the governors have it in their power—after all, they are elected by the whole membership, which can number tens of thousands of people—to ensure that such a board better reflects the local community.

Daniel Rogerson: Transparency will be vital in encouraging local people to get involved in the management and scrutiny of their local services. When will the Minister publish the review of the market forces factor?

Ben Bradshaw: As we have already said in a written statement to this House, we intend to publish that alongside the operating framework in October.

Michael Penning: May I ask the Minister to join me in congratulating Monitor on the excellent work it has done over the years to get the right trusts—the viable trusts—through as foundation trusts? Can he explain why so many trusts fail the Monitor test? Even though they have gone through their own board, their health authority and his Department, Monitor still says that a third of the trusts are not suitable. Is that not a waste of money, and should it not be picked up earlier?

Ben Bradshaw: No, that happens because Monitor rightly has a high standard. We are working closely with Monitor and with the trusts concerned to ensure that those that apply are more likely to get through the process. If we want to ensure that foundation trust hospitals are hospitals of high quality, it is right that we set the bar high—that is necessary. The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that any trust should become a foundation trust, regardless of the quality of its finances and its care.

Social Enterprise Start-ups

David Drew: What assistance his Department offers to social enterprise start-ups in the health sector.

Ivan Lewis: The Department has allocated £100 million for the social enterprise investment fund over four years from 2007 to 2011. That includes £73 million capital and £27 million revenue funding. We have already awarded £10 million to social enterprises, including start-ups, in 2007-08.

David Drew: I hear what my hon. Friend says, and as a Co-operator I like social enterprises. But is it not fair to say that it would be much better if we were to look at new ideas and start-ups from social enterprises, rather than looking at ways the NHS could be run differently? There is at least a degree of confusion out there, and I wonder if it would be better if we changed our attitude to organisational reforms—which are necessary—as the best place for social enterprises.

Ivan Lewis: We need to do both. We need to encourage innovation and original ways of working, with organisations coming in that can offer health and social care services in a different way. If we look at the challenge of health inequalities and reaching black and minority ethnic communities and other hard-to-reach communities, we find that social enterprises have an important role to play in helping us to tackle that. Equally, if existing groups of staff in the NHS feel that they can offer a better, more innovative and flexible service through a social enterprise, we want to give them the right to ask the question and have their proposal seriously considered by a primary care trust. We will certainly use many of our resources to encourage new organisations to come into the NHS and social care system to provide the innovation and flexibility that we want in a modern health care system.

Anne McIntosh: Surely the most social enterprise of all is allowing GPs to continue to dispense to patients who live more than a mile away from a pharmacy or the GP practice. Will he look favourably on that as part of his social enterprise agenda?

Ivan Lewis: It is very important to understand that we are reviewing the provision of those services following the publication of the community pharmacy White Paper. No final decisions have been made. When we make the decisions, we are concerned about the best interests of the communities and patients. That should be our priority, rather than the narrow interests of one group of professionals.

Andy Reed: My hon. Friend is right to say that social enterprise, especially co-operatives, can play an important part in delivering very local services. The capital money is worth while and very valued, but will he ensure that there is a culture, right through the NHS, that ensures that when people come forward with co-operative or social enterprise ideas, they are not rejected out of hand? This should not be an isolated programme, but a core part of what the NHS does. As my hon. Friend rightly says, organisations such as Shepshed Carers, a co-operative in my constituency, provide some of the best care because they believe in the co-operative principle and they deliver services locally.

Ivan Lewis: My hon. Friend is right. At the heart of world-class commissioning is a recognition of the fact that we need to commission not only traditional in-house provision, but imaginative solutions. We also need to look at facilitating and building the capacity of the voluntary sector and social enterprise in local communities, not simply wait for bids from existing organisations. The new NHS constitution makes it clear that any organisation providing NHS services in the future will have to take account of the fundamental non-negotiable principles it contains. That provides safeguards for hon. Members who have concerns about diversification in the NHS. For the first time, voluntary organisations, social enterprises and the private sector will have to play by the rules in the constitution in an integrated NHS.

Vincent Cable: Is the Minister actively promoting the Sunderland model of social enterprise, which has been used to organise community nursing and is proving to be a much more satisfactory alternative than privatisation, which would undermine the tradition of public services?

Ivan Lewis: It is not my job actively to encourage one model against another. If something is working, clearly making a difference and achieving better outcomes for patients, we need to ensure that information about that model is available across the system. As part of Lord Darzi's report, we have, for the first time, given staff the right to request the chance to set up a social enterprise. We have also introduced new arrangements for pension provision for existing staff who wish to become part of a social enterprise. Essentially, we have removed many of the obstacles and the barriers that in the past have prevented staff who wanted to take that option from doing so. We will certainly look at the model that the hon. Gentleman mentions, and where we can learn from it we will share best practice.

Diabetes

Keith Vaz: What steps his Department is taking to improve awareness of diabetes.

Ann Keen: "Putting Prevention First" states that everyone aged 40 to 74 will receive an individual risk assessment for vascular conditions, including diabetes. The associated Reduce Your Risk campaign, announced in "High Quality Care for All", will be aimed at raising awareness among the general public of the risks of diabetes and other vascular diseases.

Keith Vaz: I discovered I had type 2 diabetes only after I attended a local screening centre organised by my local GP. It is estimated that half a million people in the UK have undiagnosed diabetes. In fact, some right hon. and hon. Members will have diabetes but will be unaware of it. Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way is to spend money on prevention rather than cure and that awareness is therefore crucial? Will she welcome the establishment of the new centre of excellence for diabetes in Leicester that is being paid for by the PCT?

Ann Keen: Diagnosing people with diabetes so that they can receive care and treatment is vital and I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has had the treatment that he needs to manage his diabetes. He will be pleased to know that the quality and outcomes framework has resulted in an extra 200,000 people being diagnosed with diabetes in the past year alone. Initiatives such as the Silver Star Appeal are vital in reaching all areas of the population. I congratulate my right hon. Friend and Leicester PCT in particular on the work that they have to done for those who are at an increased risk of diabetes. I congratulate him on establishing that charity. The work on the proposed diabetes centre of excellence will continue and that centre will, we hope, spread good practice around the country.

David Tredinnick: Apart from the excellent work in Leicester, is the Minister aware of the work at King's college hospital, particularly the DAFNE course? That one week course in dose adjustment for normal eating has been described in the  British Medical Journal as improving
	"blood glucose control, quality of life and treatment satisfaction."
	Will the Minister look closely at that one-week course? If she does, she will probably find that it is much safer for diabetics once they have done the course and that it reduces the amount of insulin consumed.

Ann Keen: That is a very interesting comment. We need always to be ready to learn and to consider new research. I would be happy to look at that research and to take the subject up with the hon. Gentleman if he wishes.

Jeff Ennis: May I declare my interest as a diabetic? I agree with the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz); diabetes is an illness that creeps up on a person. I guess that it was more than two years before I was diagnosed with diabetes. Early diagnosis is crucial.
	Will the Minister join me in congratulating Barnsley district general hospital on its recent improvements and investment in its diabetes centre? That has really improved the service for diabetics in Barnsley.

Ann Keen: Of course, I am pleased to congratulate Barnsley. I give my hon. Friend my best wishes in dealing with his diagnosis. We should perhaps screen more Members. If more of us are confident with our own health care, we can go out and be ambassadors to our constituents.

Anne Milton: The incidence and prevalence of diabetes are greater in areas of high deprivation, the incidence of type 2 diabetes is five times higher in black and ethnic minority groups, and diabetes is predicted to grow by 9 per cent. by 2010. Will the Minister outline what she is doing to address the health inequalities that are very prevalent as regards the disease?

Ann Keen: The strategy published last week addresses all those issues. I am pleased to see that the hon. Lady is concerned about health inequalities, because we want our health centres and our out-of-hours facilities to address them. Screening with specialist nurses, in particular, will take place so that we can look after members of BME communities in a special and different way.

Children's In-patient Services (Leeds)

Paul Truswell: What progress has been made on the centralisation of children's in-patient services in Leeds.

Ann Keen: Plans to centralise children's in-patient and critical care at the Leeds general infirmary are well under way. Each specialty within children's services has established a planning group to look at how improvements can be delivered, and the location of children's facilities has now been agreed.

Paul Truswell: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. I also thank her on behalf of the young patients, their parents and the health professionals for the personal interest that she has taken in this project, which is very much to be commended. The strategic health authority has submitted a bid for public dividend capital to part-finance the project. Can she assure me that she will look at that bid favourably and speedily and that she will retain her interest in the project to make sure that it is delivered by the target date of November next year?

Ann Keen: My hon. Friend has been exceptionally persuasive in developing my interest in this local scheme, as have all other Members in the area. I thank him for his comments, but the people of his constituency, and of Leeds in general, also need to thank him, because he has certainly led the campaign to improve and change children's services. I have had the privilege of meeting the parents, carers and clinical staff, and the parents and carers in particular have done sterling work. I believe that my hon. Friend is meeting the chief executive tomorrow, and I am sure that they will both keep me informed and update me as appropriate.

Pharmacies

Graham Stuart: What effect he expects the outcome of the pharmacy consultation to have on the viability of local GP practices in (a) Beverley and Holderness constituency and (b) England.

Dawn Primarolo: We have no proposals in the pharmacy White Paper "Building on strengths—delivering the future" that should affect the viability of GP practices. The White Paper is considering the control of entry provisions for dispensing services, not general medical services offered by GPs.

Graham Stuart: GPs who serve rural areas, such as the Hedon group practice, which I visited on Friday, provide a highly valued dispensing service to the surrounding areas. The practice uses some of the income from that to subsidise unprofitable branch surgeries, such as the one in Keyingham. Does the Minister accept that the pharmacy White Paper proposals threaten the viability of those carefully constructed and excellent services?

Dawn Primarolo: No, I do not. The average GP partner of a practice who does not dispense earns about £120,000 a year; a dispensing GP partner would earn, on average, about £20,000 a year more, taking their income to £140,000. It is also true that dispensing GPs have smaller list sizes, but even allowing for that, the average income a year for a GP dispensing medical services would not become unviable. I reiterate that there are no proposals to end dispensing by doctors. I accept entirely the point that Members have made about the need to look carefully at each area to make sure that provisions are available, but we have a duty, when considering the extension of pharmacy, to consider the rules for dispensing doctors, which have been in place since 1912.

David Taylor: But the suggestion is that where dispensing chemists exist within 1 mile of a GP practice, the right of that practice to dispense will cease. That would hit very hard practices that serve rural areas in north-west Leicestershire, such as the Measham medical unit, which uses the money that it gets to provide more doctors and better facilities. Can the Minister suggest how the high reputation of such practices and the high quality of service that they provide to many thousands of patients in rural areas will be protected under the proposed framework?

Dawn Primarolo: If my hon. Friend looks at the White Paper on pharmacies, he will see that it is to do with extending the provisions through the 10,000 pharmacies in this country, making them health centres and ensuring that they can do some of the diagnostic work that Members discussed earlier, such as diabetes testing. As regards the 1,100 dispensing practices in this country, I would say to my hon. Friend that there is no suggestion whatever in the White Paper that dispensing GPs are to be abolished. That is an unfortunate proposition, which is being put around by some, and it simply is not true. The points that my hon. Friend makes about ensuring continued provision in rural areas are entirely accepted on the basis of the services needed.

Philip Dunne: I have listened very carefully to the Minister. Can the House take it from what she has said that, in contrast to the comments made—quite properly, as I interpreted the White Paper—by the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) dispensing GPs who are more than a mile from an existing commercial dispensary will continue to be allowed to dispense, irrespective of the consequences of the consultation?

Dawn Primarolo: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I would say that if he can find in the White Paper the proposition that dispensing GPs are to be abolished, I would be grateful if he pointed it out. It is not there. The purpose of the White Paper is to consider the control of entry for pharmaceutical services in local areas. There are 10,000 pharmacies, and the issues are to do with access to those services. I am sure that he would accept that, while wanting to protect dispensing GP services where there are no other services available, which makes those services essential to the rural area, it would be quite remiss of the Government not at least to look at the rules concerning circumstances in which a GP dispensing service is on the opposite side of the road to a pharmacy. That is all we are doing.

Sunbeds

Si�n James: What progress his Department has made in gathering information on the number and distribution of sunbeds, as referred to in paragraph 10 of the cancer reform strategy.

Dawn Primarolo: We have carried out some preliminary scoping work and are examining the findings. I know that my hon. Friend is a great champion on this matter. We are considering the commissioning of further collections of information in order to inform decisions in due course.

Si�n James: I appreciate the Minister's answer. I know that she is aware of my campaign, as she has kindly said. There has recently been another incident of a young person being seriously burned by a sunbed, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn). Such incidents are still happening too often. Within the cancer reform strategy, can some of the information that is collated concentrate specifically on which salons are staffed and which are unstaffed, and on the number of incidents that occur?

Dawn Primarolo: I am sure that the whole House is appalled at the prospect of children who use tanning machines being severely burned, and at the fact that they are using them in an unsupervised manner. I entirely accept my hon. Friend's point, and I will certainly consider how it will be possible to collect the information that she is seeking regarding salons with tanning machines that are not properly staffed, or not staffed at all, and that therefore pose a greater risk to minorsand, indeed, to all who use them.

Lindsay Hoyle: This is also about people who have tanning machines at home. What can we do to protect such people? What advice are we giving them? We know that these machines are not good for us; we know that they are bad. What can we do to bring in real legislation? The statistics are there. The information is there. We need to take real action to ensure that we get the message across that the machines are unsafe. I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend raises an important point about the provision of information and guidance regarding facilities that people have in their homes. I entirely agree that part of the consideration, in addition to collecting information on unsupervised machines in public places, and on who has access to them, should involve the Government considering carefully whether the proper mechanisms are in place to inform individuals of the risks of using them, so that they can decide whether to do so.

Hospital-acquired Infections

David Kidney: What research his Department is funding to develop vaccines for hospital-acquired infections.

Ann Keen: The Department is not directly funding research to develop vaccines for health care-associated infections, but is funding the national vaccine evaluation consortium, which provides the infrastructure through which clinical trials on a clostridium difficile vaccine will be conducted.

David Kidney: We heard exciting news just over a week ago that there might be a vaccine for such killers as MRSA and clostridium difficile in the next 10 years, and I urge my hon. Friend to ensure that the Department supports that research. Given the time scale, however, does she agree that it is important that health trusts do not take their eye off the ball when it comes to protecting patients against those potential killers by following the guidance on hygiene, clean premises and wards and screening newly admitted patients?

Ann Keen: My hon. Friend raises a very important point. In fact, he must have raised it in his constituency, as the rates of MRSA and C. difficile infection in the Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust were in decline in March this year. All health staff in the area are to be congratulated. We have reduced infection rates significantly for MRSA and C. difficile. Latest data from the Health Protection Agency for January to March show that MRSA bloodstream infections are down 33 per cent. from the same quarter of last year, and by more than 49 per cent. from the 2003-04 monthly average. The same is true for C. difficile infections: in the most vulnerable group of those aged 65 and over, the rate is 32 per cent. lower than in the same quarter of last year. NHS staff work extremely hard to drive down the number of infections. I agree that we must not take our eye off the ball, but we must also recognise such significant improvements.

Diabetes

Adrian Sanders: What progress has been made on meeting the national service framework for diabetes targets; and if he will make a statement.

Ann Keen: We are continuing to make good progress against the diabetes national service framework standards. Data from the quality and outcomes framework demonstrate that the vast majority of people with diagnosed diabetes are receiving the key processes of care. The national health service continues to pursue a range of initiatives to address all the standards in the national service framework.

Adrian Sanders: I think that all progress is welcome, but the problem that is being identified is that progress is not universal. In particular, there is no universal access to specialist diabetes services. What are the Minister's plans for addressing that?

Ann Keen: Data from the quality and outcomes framework also show that the service is improving year on year, and I believe that a progress report with examples from across the country is due to be published in August. We are working with the national diabetic support team and key stakeholders such as Diabetes UK to produce advice, guidance and the practical tools to support the NHS in achieving the vision set out in the national standards framework. There is more to do, and although improvements have been made, the increase in type 2 diabetes in particular means that as soon as we feel that there has been an improvement, the figures change. The problem is therefore very difficult to monitor, and I look forward to the report that I believe will be published in August.

Phyllis Starkey: The focus on more mature people and type 2 diabetes means that there is a danger that the needs of children with diabetes may be overlooked. Will the Minister commend the way in which the Milton Keynes PCT has worked with the local parents support group MK Kids With Diabetes to make sure that local services for children with diabetes reflect the desires of those children and their parents?

Ann Keen: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments, and I should be very interested to learn more about what is taking place in Milton Keynes. We are very concerned about children's health education in the schools framework, as the Every Child Matters scheme shows, and are very pleased to hear about the initiative in Milton Keynes.

Speech and Language Therapists

Simon Hughes: If he will increase the number of speech and language therapists working in the NHS in (a) Greater London and (b) England.

Alan Johnson: Local NHS organisations are best placed to assess the needs of their local community and commission the required number of training places to develop the work force to meet those needs. We will respond more fully to the issues raised by the Bercow review in our child health strategy.

Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. Following yesterday's very successful and well-attended debate on children and young people, may I ask him specifically about adults? The estimates are that more than 250,000 adult stroke survivors have speech and communication difficulties. The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists is based in my patch, and a survey that it carried out found that more than half of adult stroke survivors say that either they did not receive services quickly enough or that they were not given enough therapy. Will the Secretary of State look at that problem, as resolving it would enhance the quality of life of people who survive stroke and who want, as anyone would, to go back to living a full life?

Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and the stroke strategy that we published in December highlighted that issue, in relation to the need for aftercare. I am happy to say that an increasingly large number of people survive strokes because of techniques such as thrombolysis, and lead a normal, or near-normal, life afterwards. Let me be absolutely clear with him: in total, the number of speech and language therapists has increased by 38 per cent. since 1997, and the number of students training to be speech and language therapists has increased by 69 per cent. We need to address the issue; it is a crucial part of the stroke strategy. The hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) has done a splendid job in relation to children and young people, but the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) is absolutely right to raise the issue in the context of adults, too.

Topical Questions

Philip Dunne: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Alan Johnson: The responsibilities of my Department embrace the whole range of NHS social care, and mental and public health service delivery, all of which are of equal importance.

Philip Dunne: Did the Home Secretary ask the Secretary of State for his advice on the impact on patients, staff and security arrangements of the Home Secretary's proposals for hospital visits by convicted knife-crime assailants, and if so, what advice did he give her?

Alan Johnson: There was never a proposal to take a person who had stabbed someone to meet their victim in accident and emergency, or in any other part of the hospital.  [Interruption.] No, there was not; there was no such proposal. The hon. Gentleman will be interested to learn that the proposal is that, as part of a restorative justice process, youngsters who have been caught in possession of a knife but have never used one will be taken by a physician in the local health service to see the damage that knives can cause. I think that that is eminently sensible, and that was the proposal all along.

Kevin Barron: Will my right hon. Friend tell us when he will publish the review of prescription charges?

Alan Johnson: Shortly, I think. There is a bit more work to do, but we hope to be able to publish the review in the next few months.

Simon Hughes: As we continue to celebrate 60 wonderful years of the NHS, may I ask the Secretary of State or Ministers to make sure that, up and down the land, it is invariably the case that when people who work for the NHS deal with a patient in a hospital or clinic, or with their family, their name and job description are identifiable, and they introduce themselves to explain why they are there?

Alan Johnson: I doubt whether that was part of Bevan's initial vision for the NHS; I do not think that name badges were involved, but the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We want to ensure respect and dignity, and seek to measure the compassion and quality of care that people receive. That, quite aside from wonderful surgery, great medicine and so on, can be an important part of a patient's experience of the NHS.

Linda Riordan: I welcome the work of the secondary breast cancer taskforce, which has identified the fact that women living with secondary and metastatic breast cancer frequently have no individual to co-ordinate their care and support. With treatments having improved significantly over the past decade, and with more and more women living with breast cancer, will the Minister ensure that those women get the care and support that they need from a clinical nurse specialist?

Ann Keen: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I have met representatives from Breast Cancer Care and the secondary breast cancer taskforce on two occasions to discuss raising the profile of secondary breast cancer. The Department of Health is aware that patients with secondary breast cancer have very different needs from those with primary breast cancer, and those two bodies made that very clear to me. I thank the all-party group on breast cancer for its guidance; it does sterling work. We continue to look at specialist services, particularly those provided by specialist nurses, in that area. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence is also currently developing clinical guidance for the diagnosis and treatment of advanced breast cancer; we expect it to be published in February 2009.

Stephen O'Brien: It is the last day of term and time for some end-of-term reports. First, on the serious subject of superbugs, given that there were 4,500 cases of MRSA in 2007-08nearly 600 more than the level needed for the Government to meet their target of halving MRSA rates by last Marchand that clostridium difficile has increased by 6 per cent. compared with the previous quarter, despite the statistics read out by his colleague a moment ago, does the Secretary of State accept that the deep clean programme was a flawed gimmick from a Prime Minister desperate for a headline? Will he now heed the advice of  The Lancet that the Government should stop pandering to populism about hospital cleanliness and listen to the evidence about washing hands, screening and bed occupancy rates?

Alan Johnson: It is just as well that I am not presenting an end-of-term report on the Opposition Front Bench[Hon. Members:  Go on.] I resist the temptation. The hon. Gentleman may be a better concert pianist than he is a Front-Bench spokesman. I do not understand the attitude of Conservative Members towards the current figures: a 33 per cent. reduction in MRSA and a 32 per cent. reduction in C. difficile. He talks about C. difficile rising against the previous quarter, not the previous year. That is always the case, because the figure includes the winter period when more older peoplethese are post-65 statisticsgo into hospital. I would have thought that he would celebrate the latest statistics and that he would know by now that no one on the Labour Benches or anyone in the health service has stopped saying, Wash your hands, responsibly prescribe antibiotics and ensure that you isolate with cohort nursing anybody who has shown symptoms of MRSA.
	On screening, we announced that we will pre-screen everyone in elective surgery and everyone in emergency surgery over this comprehensive spending review period. The Conservatives should be congratulating us on a real success story.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind Front Benchers that there are Back Benchers to be considered. Topical questions were and are for the benefit of Back Benchers.

Stephen O'Brien: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker.
	On another equally important aspect, in 2002, the Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor, committed all Departments to ensuring by April 2006 that the price for contracts reflected the full cost of the service. That would have ended the scandal of charitable giving to hospices being used to subsidise NHS care. The Prime Minister has now broken that promise because he failed to use the end-of-life strategy to introduce full cost recovery. Does the Secretary of State defend the Prime Minister's broken promise in not using the tariff in end-of-life care?

Alan Johnson: The publication of the end-of-life care strategy last week was welcomed in all quarters and was drawn up with the full involvement of the hospice movement. For the first time, we are seeing a proper strategy in this country for people in end-of-life situations, not just for the patient but for their carers.

Helen Southworth: Considering the impact on health of excessive consumption of alcohol, will my right hon. Friend tackle irresponsible promotions in pubs and clubs, including, for example, Buy two glasses of wine and get the rest of the bottle free or Four shots for 5, which are encouraging people to drink excessively?

Dawn Primarolo: I know that Members and reports from outside have expressed growing concern at the damage to health and the harmful drinking to which such discounted promotions perhaps contribute. We are awaiting research and independent reviews on this and the reports are expected in September. If promotions are demonstrated to contribute to harm and if restricting or banning them would improve health, we will certainly take action.

John Baron: We are two years into a national bowel cancer screening programme, and yet the east of England lags far behind other regions. Indeed a recent letter from my PCT confirms that no hospital in Essex has received accreditation for the programme and, therefore, no screening invitations have been sent outnot one. Will the Secretary of State please look into this poor state of affairs and ensure that Essex and the east of England receive the help they need to catch up with other regions across the country?

Alan Johnson: Yes, I will look into that. I recently visited the cancer screening programme in the south-east. It is not due to go on stream nationwide until next year, but if one region is lagging as far behind as the hon. Gentleman has suggested, we need to look into the matter and ensure that it catches up.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am very concerned about the current level of funding for mental health services in London. I recognise that the Government have made a big increase in funding over the past few years, but I am interested to know what system the Department is using to assess future demand for mental health services. In my experience, there is huge unmet demand in my area that is not met by counselling services. More investment and support are needed to help people get through what can be a traumatic period in their lives.

Ivan Lewis: My hon. Friend is right that mental health services are crucial. The World Health Organisation has said that mental health services in Britain are better funded, better structured and better supported than those anywhere else in Europe. In London, we spent 26.3 million on mental health in 2002-03, and we are now spending 75.7 million. We have asked local authorities and primary care trusts in every locality to conduct joint population needs assessments to identify the future need for mental health services. We are also significantly expanding access to psychological therapists, which will be crucial in terms of mental health and primary care.

Norman Lamb: In view of the horrifying level of admissions to hospital for alcohol-related reasons, which has been highlighted today, I want to raise the issue of the impact of violence on accident and emergency staff. It is surely intolerable that staff regularly suffer abuse, threats and violence as a result of alcohol-induced behaviour. Does the Secretary of State endorse the approach adopted in the Royal Bolton hospital, where through co-operation between police and A and E staff, patients who behave in that way face the possibility of on-the-spot fines or prosecution? The pilot appears to have been very successful in reducing violence against staff.

Alan Johnson: I endorse that approach. The hon. Gentleman knows that recent Home Office legislationI cannot remember the exact titleintroduces a new NHS power to remove people who are causing low-level nuisance in A and E, which can escalate into the kind of violence that he mentions. The power will be available once that Bill has received Royal Assent. Until then, I am sure that the initiative that he mentions will be copied elsewhere.

Andrew Selous: The Secretary of State knows that the NHS is fortunate in having a number of national centres of excellence, such as the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital at Stanmore. It has recently come to my attention, however, that practices at district general hospitals do not always reflect the expertise of the national centre. I ask the Secretary of State to investigate whether the knowledge of the top surgeons at the national centres is being passed down to district general hospitals, so that patients do not have operations that they should not have and that money is not wasted.

Ben Bradshaw: I will happily do that. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are working closely with the all-party specialist orthopaedic services and hospitals group, of which he may be a member; if not, I suggest that he joins. It is important that the expertise that he has mentioned in specialist hospitals is disseminated to hospitals locally and that people are treated in the right hospital for a particular condition. If people have a particular condition, they may need the specialist care that he has discussed.

Dari Taylor: Researching drugs and introducing new products is a fast-changing activity. Does the Minister accept the belief that the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence is not geared up to respond equally quickly? As a consequence, many patients believe that a drug is available, but not in their locality.

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend is right. We have taken measures to speed up the NICE process, not least by ensuring that the process can begin before a drug is licensed, rather than waiting until the licensing process is complete. The point is very important. She will have seen in the recently published constitution for the NHS a real emphasis on giving a right to patients to access NICE-approved drugs and treatments, but the process by which those become available must be speeded up, which is a large part of the Darzi review.

John Bercow: Given that the list of medical exemptions to prescription charges was drawn up as long ago as 1968 and that the first case of HIV/AIDS in the United Kingdom was diagnosed only in the 1980s, does the Secretary of State agree that it would now be timely to update the list and add HIV/AIDS to it?

Alan Johnson: That is one of the purposes of the review to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) referred earlier. The review of prescription charges is to look again at that 1968 list to see whether we need to remove any of the illnesses that qualify for free prescriptions, or, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, add to the list.

Speaker's Statement

Mr. Speaker: It may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Prime Minister has suggested to me that I convene a Speaker's Conference. The following terms of reference have been agreed through the usual channels:
	To consider and make recommendations for rectifying the disparity between the representation of women and ethnic minorities in the House of Commons and their representation in the UK population at large; and to consider such other matters as might, by agreement, be referred to for consideration.
	It is proposed that the Conference will be set up as a Committee of the House. A motion to establish the Conference as a Committee of the House will be tabled by the Government in October for decision by the House.

Iraq

Gordon Brown: Following my visit last weekend to Baghdad and Basra, I would like to update the House on the latest developments in Iraq.
	Let me start by paying tribute to the British servicemen and women who have served in Iraq with distinction since March 2003; in particular, I pay tribute to those who have given their lives in service of our country. I know that the whole House will join me in honouring the memory of the fallen and saluting the courage of all our military and civilian personnel. The House will also want to know that during my visit I had discussions with Prime Minister Maliki about the British hostages who have been unjustifiably held for more than one year. We want them released immediately, and I will continue to update the House on progress.
	As I set out in my October statement, our objective is the creation of an independent, prosperous, democratic Iraq that is free of terrorist violence, secure within its borders and a stable presence in the regionsomething that is firmly in Britain's interests and in the interests of the world as a whole. To achieve this, we have sought with America and other allies to support the Iraqi Government as they now take on greater responsibility for their own security and safeguarding their new democracy, challenging thosewhether terrorists, insurgents or militiawho threaten their citizens and undermine the rule of law. We have also sought to foster democratic and accountable government and support national reconciliation, giving all of Iraq's communities a genuine say in the future of their country, and we have worked to help the Iraqis build their economy and give their people an economic stake in the future.
	In the last year, this has led us to pursue the strategy of overwatch, which is to move from a combat role to the training and mentoring of the Iraqi forces and the Iraqi police, to encourage the development of local government and to work with the Iraqis on a Basra economic development strategy.
	In recent months, conditions in Basra have shown a marked improvement. Incidents of indirect fire against British troops in the Basra air station have fallen from 200 a month at their peak last summer to an average of fewer than five a month since April this year. As the all-party House of Commons Defence Committee, which has visited Iraq recently, says in its report today, the security situation in Basra has been transformed.
	As General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker confirmed to me in Baghdad at the weekend, thanks to operations by Iraqi and coalition security forces, violent incidents right across Iraq are at their lowest level since 2004. Sunni groups have now joined the Iraqi and American forces in driving al-Qaeda from areas where it had been able to terrorise the population, and Iraqi troops, with British and American support, have had success against the illegal Shi'a militias, giving the Government of Iraq more control over the country. Of course, this progressoften fragilecannot be taken for granted. Millions of Iraqis are still refugees, either inside Iraq or in other countries; and the two car bombs that were detonated at the gates of an Iraqi army recruitment centre on 15 July remind us that there are groups still determined to inflict violence.
	The most important development is that the improvements that we have seen have been increasingly Iraqi-led. Security responsibility for 10 of 18 provinces has now transferred to Iraqi control, including all four provinces in Britain's area of operations. Iraqi security forces are now taking the lead in maintaining security and confronting all those who perpetrate violence, including acting decisively against Shi'a militia in Basra, Sadr City and Amarah; and they have been supported by local people from across Iraqi communitiesSunni, Shi'a and Kurd. Britain has already helped to train more than 20,000 Iraqi army troops, but I want to pay credit to Prime Minister Maliki, his Government and the Iraqi security forces, who have shown bravery and leadership in tackling the terrorists and militias threatening the stability of their country.
	The improved security situation has provided a platform for further, essential progress on reconciliation. We have seen not only increased co-operation between Sunni communities and the Iraqi Government in areas such as Anbar and Mosul, and the return of the Tawafuq Sunni party to the Government, but the passage of key legislation that is helping to embed democracy, including the accountability and justice law, the provincial powers law, and now the 2008 budget. The next stage will be provincial elections, reinforcing the political progress made at the national level. Our message to the leaders of all Iraq's communities, and to parties right across the country, is that they must continue to make these right long-term decisions to achieve a sustainable peace.
	It is also important, as we move forward, that we see Iraq's neighbours playing a constructive and responsible role in Iraq's future. In particular, Syria should clamp down on the movement of foreign fighters. Iran must stop the provision of arms and training to those who attack a democratically elected Government in Iraq or the coalition forces in Iraq, and the Iraqi people.
	We will also continue to focus on helping the Iraqi Government to rebuild their economy and ensuring that the Iraqi people all have a stake in the future. British-led projects in southern Iraq have now helped to deliver enough electricity to supply 800,000 people and water supplies for over 1 million people, with this year another 120,000 people due to get power and 250,000 to gain access to direct supplies of water. Our funding has helped the UN and World Bank to repair and re-equip 1,000 health centres and more than 5,000 schools, and to train nearly 150,000 teachers. With British training and equipment, including upgrades to air traffic control systems, lighting and firefighting, Iraqi personnel are regularly handling more than 20 civil flights a week at Basra airport. British mentoring and support has helped Basra provincial council to gain access to $400 million in central Government fundsmoney that, in line with the council's increasing ability to take the lead itself, it is now able to spend further to improve infrastructure and to provide the essential public services of power, water, health and education.
	Last week, the Basra development commission agreed an outline economic strategy for Basra that sets out plans to encourage private sector and foreign investment. Britain is supporting the new Basra investment promotion agency, which I visited at the weekend, and supporting the Basra development fund to provide loans to small and start-up businesses, which will be key drivers of economic growth and job creation. I am grateful for the work of Mr. Michael Wareing, a leading British businessman, who co-chairs the Basra development commission.
	Nine months ago, I set out the key elements of our strategy for handing over security in Basra to the Iraqis and set out the stages for completing the tasks that we have set ourselves. We completed the initial phase on target, handing over Basra to provincial Iraqi control in December. This allowed us to reduce troop numbers in southern Iraq from 5,500 in September to 4,500. After the Iraqi Government launched Operation Charge of the Knights to enforce the rule of law in Basra against the militias, as my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary explained to the House in April, the military advice was that we should pause the further planned reduction so that British troops, together with US forces, could support the Iraqis in this crucial operation.
	Since then, we have responded to changing needs and embedded more than 800 UK personnel within the Iraqi command structureat divisional, brigade and battalion level. The focus of the 4,100 forces still in southern Iraq is now on completing the task of training and mentoring the 14th division of the Iraqi army in Basra, and it is right that, as we do so, we continue for the next few months to provide support at those levels. Other remaining military tasksagreed with the Government of Iraq and in close consultation with our US alliesinclude finalising the preparation of Basra airport for civilian control, and continuing to develop the capacity of the Iraqi navy and marines so that they can protect oil platforms, territorial waters and the port, which are all critical to Iraq's economic future.
	It is now right to complete the tasks we have set ourselves. We expect the Basra development commission to publish its detailed economic development plan in the autumn. We hope that local government elections will take place by the end of 2008. Subject to security conditions on the ground, our military commanders believe that the Iraqis will be able to take over development of Basra airport by the end of this year. They also expect the first stage of the general training and mentoring of the combat troops of the 14th division in Basra to be complete around the turn of the year. As the focus shifts from training combat troops, we will move forward to the specific task of mentoring headquarters and specialist staffs, and our military commanders expect the 14th division in Basra to be fully trained during the first months of next year.
	As we complete these tasks, and as progress continues in these different areas, we will continue to reduce the number of British troops in Iraq. Of course, future decisions will, as always, be based on the advice of our military commanders on the ground, but I can tell the House today that, just as last year we moved from combat to overwatch, we expect a further fundamental change of mission in the first months of 2009, as we make the transition to a long-term bilateral relationship with Iraq, similar to the normal relationships that our military forces have with other important countries in the region. The Defence Secretary and our military commanders will now work with the Iraqi Government to formulate agreement on the details of such a partnership, including its necessary legal basis, and he will report to the House in the autumn.
	I believe it is right that having successfully trained and mentored large numbers of the Iraqi forces, and having successfully worked with the Iraqis on a new economic development strategy, we should complete the key tasks that we have agreed with the Iraqi Government: training the 14th division of the Iraqi army in Basra; preparing Basra airport for transfer to Iraqi control; pushing forward economic development; providing the necessary support for provincial elections; honouring our obligations to the Iraqi people; and at the same timeand at all timesensuring the safety of our armed forces, whose professionalism and dedication have brought us to this stage and whose service to our country I once again commend to the House.

David Cameron: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement.
	Is not the absolutely clear message that should go out from across this House that the British armed forces who have served in Iraq and are still serving there are doing, and have done, an incredible job in difficult circumstances? When sitting in the back of one of those transport planes in Basra, you meet people who have been to Iraq three times, four times, five times and sometimes even more. They have given great service and the whole country can be incredibly proud of them. I join the Prime Minister in praising the Iraqi army and Prime Minister Maliki for imposing the rule of law, and for doing the important job of taking on the militias. The Prime Minister was quite right to mention that.
	On the question of troop numbers, clearly everyone wants to see our forces withdrawn from Iraq as soon as it is practical to do so, but does the Prime Minister agree that, looking back over the past year, we can see two important lessons to learn? The first is that we should not make premature announcements about troop withdrawals that cannot then be delivered. Instead, we should set the conditions that need to be met to achieve our objectives, and the troop withdrawals can take place when they have been made. The Prime Minister said last October that
	we plan from next spring to reduce force numbers in southern Iraq to a figure of 2,500.[ Official Report, 8 October 2007; Vol. 464, c. 23.]
	Yet currentlyfor good reasonthere are more than 4,000 servicemen and women stationed in Iraq. Can the Prime Minister clarify the figures for Operation Telic as a whole? When servicemen and women serving at sea are included, the figure is more than 6,000. Can the Prime Minister confirm that a combination of written answers and the Ministry of Defence website suggests that the figure has actually increased since October, when the Prime Minister promised that 1,000 troops would come home by Christmas?

Gordon Brown: indicated dissent.

David Cameron: He says it is not true; it would help if he gave us simple, consistent, practical figures.
	That brings me to the second lesson, which is the need for the Government to be as clear and transparent as possible on troop numbers. Is it not the case that over the past few days we have been in danger of hearing two quite contradictory things? On the one hand, the Prime Minister has said that he is against any artificial timetables for withdrawing the troops; on the other hand, Downing street sources have been reported as saying that he supports a 16-month timetable for withdrawal. Does the Prime Minister agree that we are discussing not abstract numbers and abstract announcements, but people with families and responsibilities who are already coping with the consequence of overstretch and who deserve the very best treatmentnot spinning over numbers and announcements?
	Can the Prime Minister clear up one wider issue on Iraq? The UN mandate for our presence there expires in December, and the Iraqi Government are not seeking a fresh UN mandate. In his statement, the Prime Minister mentioned seeking a fresh legal basis for our troops. Can he tell us a little more about that? Is it being negotiated in parallel with the United States? When will the negotiations begin? Is he absolutely happy that they will be concluded before the UN mandate runs out, and that there will not be a gap between the two legal bases? It is important to straighten that out.
	As for economic development, the Prime Minister spoke of accelerating economic reconstruction. Can he tell us when he expects there to be basic amenities such as reliable electricity and clean running water for the whole of Basra city? While there are clearly improvements in security there, which are very welcome, can he confirm that the provincial reconstruction team is still based with British forces at the air base? Can he also tell us what prospect there is of a move to Basra proper, and in what circumstances it could take place?
	The Prime Minister mentioned the hostages in Iraq. The whole House will wish to call for their release, and the Government know that they have our support in doing all that they can to make progress on that vital issue.
	On the last occasion when we discussed this, the Prime Minister agreed with our view that there should be an inquiry to enable us to learn the lessons of our involvement in Iraq. Does he agree that the argument for delaying the start of that inquiry is becoming weaker and weaker, and that he really should tell us when he will get on with it?
	Let me turn to the influence of Iran on Iraq. Can the Prime Minister give us the current assessment of Iranian involvement, and its impact on security and stability? On the issue of sanctions against Iran, he said in November that Britain would
	lead in seeking tougher sanctions... at the UN... including on oil and gas investment.
	Last month he said that action would
	start today for a new phase of sanctions on oil and gas.
	Will he confirm that, as we speak, there are still no sanctions on oil and gas? Is he absolutely confident that if there is no positive response to the latest diplomatic offer within two weeks, sanctions will be imposed?
	I should be grateful if the Prime Minister addressed one final issue relating to statements such as this. I have asked him this before. It is essential that the British people are kept up to date at regular intervals. Will the Prime Minister consider again our call for, at least, full quarterly reports on progress in Iraq and Afghanistan so that we can be given clear statements, on the record, on troop numbers and progress on the ground? Is that not the only way of ensuring that everyone, especially those serving on our behalf and their families, knows exactly where they stand?

Gordon Brown: I join the right hon. Gentleman in thanking our armed forces for their professionalism and dedication. I think it true to say that no Ministers have come to the House more frequently to make statements about the developing situation in Iraq than have I, the Defence Secretary and the Foreign Secretary, on occasion. I also believe that we have kept the House fully informed of what is happening, by means of written answers and other statements. I am pleased that the Defence Committee has published a report today, to which I shall return in a minute.
	I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we want to press ahead with the economic development of Basra, which includes the provision of electricity and water. As I have said, 800,000 people have electricity and 1 million have water, but more money has been pledged both by us and by the other organisations involved. I also agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we will need a legal basis for continuing our presence in Iraq after December this year, and that is precisely what will be discussed in the negotiations in which the Defence Secretary and our commanders will engage with the Iraqi Government. Of course, as the right hon. Gentleman would expect, when I met Prime Minister Maliki at the weekend I discussed exactly that issue, and how the talks would move forward.
	The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the figures relating to troop numbers. We completed the first stage of the reduction in numbers from 5,500 and 4,500, but it was right to pause when the advice on the ground was that Prime Minister Maliki and Operation Charge of the Knights were intent on excluding all the militias from Basra. We wanted to give, as did the American forces, the support that we could to what was a successful operationand now recognised to be successfulto exclude the militias from the area of Basra. It was right to learn the lessons of Charge of the Knights, which were to take into account the pressing need for further training of the Iraqi army. So nearly 1,000 troops a day are now working with the Iraqi army, embedded with it and doing a great jobI met them at the weekendadvising, mentoring and preparing it for taking over greater responsibilities in the future. We have now agreed a new set of tasks that the British Army will work with the Iraqi army to complete.
	We made the right decisions to come down from 5,500 to 4,500. I said at the timethe right hon. Gentleman did not give the full quotationthat we would take the decisions that were necessary
	in the spring of next yearand guided as always by the advice of our military commanders.[ Official Report, 8 October 2007; Vol. 464, c. 23.]
	It was right to pause the reduction in numbers. If any evidence is needed to that effect, let us look at today's all-party Select Committee on Defence report, which says, as a result of those two changes that were madethose on the Opposition Front Bench should recognise thatthat
	We were enormously impressed with what we saw in Basra.
	The report continues:
	The UK MiTTs
	the military transition teams, which we brought in after Charge of the Knights
	are doing an excellent job in enhancing the capacity and self-sufficiency of the...Army. Their work is vital to the future of the Iraqi Security Forces and...to stability in southern Iraq. The contrast with what we saw last year is stark and profound, and the MoD must continue to support the MiTTs in what will inevitably be a medium-to long-term project.
	The decisions that we made on the advice of the military commanders on the ground were the right decisions. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to make political capital out of them, because it was right not only that we reduced the numbers at the time we did but that we paused so that we could support Operation Charge of the Knights. It was right that we changed our tactics so that we were in a position to embed our troops in support of training the Iraqi forces.
	It is also rightthis relates to the final questions that the right hon. Gentleman askedthat we work to a long-term bilateral relationship with the Iraqi Government. The discussions were about how we can give bilateral support to the Iraqi forces over a period of time. We will complete the work at Basra airport soon, and we hope to hold local government elections in the near future. The economic development plan will be published with the support of the British Government and funds that we are providing, and the work of training the forces will be completed in due course. It is right, therefore, to move to what is a change of mission, and that is a new bilateral relationship with the Iraqi Government, which I hope all parties in the House will support.
	Finally, I have already said that this is not the right time for us to consider an inquiry. The troops are there; we have 4,100 troops on the ground. The whole focus of the Ministry of Defence is on completing the work that we have started. That is the right position for the Government to be in.

Nicholas Clegg: I would also like to thank the Prime Minister for his statement and to salute the valour, the skill and the perseverance of the troops, and the courage of their families. Let us also not forget the courage of the families of the British hostages who are still held in Iraq.
	I welcome, of course, the proposal to bring our troops out of Iraq. Their continued presence there contributes increasingly little to Iraq. Since withdrawing to the Basra air base, we have effectively become impotent, defending ourselves and little else. I am sure that the Prime Minister would agree that the major indirect effect of our deployment is to stretch our overall military capability and so constrain the success of our efforts to bring stability to Afghanistan. I regret that there is still no real clarity in detail on when we will finally leave. That continues the odd nod and wink strategy that has guided our approach to Iraq for some time. Such uncertainty about timing is unfair on our troops, unfair on their families and, of course, unfair on the Iraqis.  [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to be heard, but there is too much in the way of private conversation in the Chamber, which is very unfair.

Nicholas Clegg: Why should the families of our troops or the troops themselves believe the proposed withdrawal plan, given the confusion that the Prime Minister createdconfusion that has not been explained todaywhen announcing a timetable for withdrawal last October that was never implemented in full? I am told that part of the reason for that is concern about sensitivities in the White Housethat the Americans do not want to see us withdraw from Iraq. Does he agree that it is in America's interest to release us from our obligations in Iraq, precisely so that we can do the job that we need to do in Afghanistan?
	Can the Prime Minister also provide us with an update on the total costs and projected costs of our commitment in Iraq? At a time of increased economic woes here at home, the cost of our misguided engagement in Iraq is of considerable public interest. As we draw our troops down from Iraq, will the Prime Minister assure the House that we will step up our presence in Afghanistan? When will he start deploying more resources to that vital conflict? When will he start moving the vital equipment needed, such as armoured vehicles, out of Iraq to the front line in Helmand?
	Finally, it is impossible to discuss Iraq without mentioning Iran. Our troops' safety in Iraq and Afghanistan is intimately bound up with Iran's influence. The Prime Minister has just come back from Israel, where he rightly condemned Iran's threats to that country. However, will he learn the lesson of our disastrous tacit support for Israel's incursion into Lebanon two years ago and make it clear to the House today, and to Israel and the country at large, that he will not support, even tacitly, any unilateral Israeli military strike in Iran? Two years ago, the then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), said that an attack on Iran would be completely nuts. Does the Prime Minister agree?

Gordon Brown: Let me correct the right hon. Gentleman on a number of important facts. First, we have announced new numbers and extra support for Afghanistan. Secondly, the figures for the cost of our involvement in Iraq are published regularly. As I understand it, 3.6 billion in urgent operational requirements has been allocated over these last few years.
	Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman comments on the work that the forces in Iraq are doing, but let me repeat what the Defence Committee said this morning:
	The larger the military training commitment we can maintain, the greater will be UK influence in Iraq, and in the region as a whole, as Iraq recovers its position as a wealthy and powerful Middle East nation.
	The importance of our training effort is not simply that Iraqi troops are better able to deal with their own security, which I hope he would support, and to take responsibility themselves, but that people can see that this is long-term influence in Iraq, which is to the benefit not just of Iraq and the region but of our relationship with Iraq for the future. I hope that he will reconsider his view on this matter. The training function that is being carried out by our forces in Iraq is welcomed by the Iraqi forces and is vital in making them able to conduct their own operations and, therefore, enabling us to release the things that we are doing, allowing them to get on with their work.
	As for Iran, let me make it absolutely clearI will answer in more detail on Iranthat we have supported three United Nations resolutions on sanctions, and we have also taken action in the European Union. We will not hesitate to take further action on sanctions, including on oil and gas. We took action in the past few weeks on Bank Melli, and we are determined to show the Iranians that they have a choice. Their choice is that they can work with us, gain access to civil nuclear power and play their part as a responsible member of the international community or they can face isolation from the whole of the international community, as a result of their failure to honour what they promised to do under the non-proliferation treaty and withdraw from their programme on nuclear weapons.
	That is a clear choice, and that is what the discussions of the E3 plus 3 group are all about. That is what was being discussed at the weekend. We await an answer from Iran. The important fact is that Iran faces that choice. I do not rule out any options in relation to Iran, but the path ahead, which I support, is one of negotiations backed up by sanctions. The more sanctions that we have to impose in response to Iran's attitude, the more we will have to do, and I believe that we will have the whole of the international community behind us.

Tony Lloyd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the end the most sensible way of combating the malign influence of Iran is by ensuring that the Iraqi people, particularly in the south, have confidence in the future, which means continuing the efforts to invest in public services and the economy? He has already told the House what the British Government are doing in that context, but will he outline what steps are being taken by our European partners to ensure that economic burden sharing takes place?

Gordon Brown: The important point to recognise is that Iraq is a potentially wealthy country. It has produced more oil in recent months, having reopened oil production that was closed after the fall of Saddam Hussein, and it is in a position to develop its oil reserves even more. Part of our Basra development strategy is to ensure that Iraq's oil resources are developed to the full, and we want other countries to be involved in the process.
	My hon. Friend asks about the European Union. We have called a Basra investment conference and we have worked with people from all EU countries to make that happen. We are behind the Basra development commission, which is trying to get new investors into Iraq. I am sure that the combined work of the World Bank and the UN to provide help for hospitals, schools and infrastructure such as water and electricity, together with our push to get new investment into Iraq, will be crucial for the future. We are prepared to continue working with the EU on all those matters.

James Arbuthnot: I welcome the statement with no reservation whatever. Does the Prime Minister agree that the transformation that the Defence Committee saw when we visited Basra this month provides some reassurance to our armed forces that the great sacrifices they make on our behalf are not made in vain and lead eventually to some improvement in the world?
	As for the figures that the Prime Minister was kind enough to mention in relation to the Defence Committee report, I agree that it was right to maintain the numbers of our armed forces in Iraq at about 4,500 during the spring. What was wrong, if I may put it gently to him, was announcing, in response to the Leader of the Opposition, the figure of 2,500 in the autumn. Let us put that behind us, however, and say that the most important thing now is to continue to build and train the Iraqi forces in precisely the long-term relationship that the Prime Minister described in his statement.

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I know that he has visited Iraq in the past few weeks and was able to walk on the streets of Basra and see for himself the change in security in the town itself, as well as in the region more widely. I believe that the Defence Committee report will be regarded as an extremely important document. It shows that the training function agreed with the Iraqi authorities is working, and it shows the value of continuing that training function so that we can properly complete the task.
	I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that all the figures announced to the House were based on the best advice of our military commanders at the time. It is true to say that we could have reduced our troops further had it not been for the operation carried out by Prime Minister Malikiwhich turned out to be the right way of getting the militias out of Basrawhile at the same time, by embedding our forces with the Iraqi forces, completing the training processes in a better, more efficient and more expeditious way than before. As the Defence Committee's report shows, embedding our training groups in the Iraqi forces has been the right thing to do and has been very successful. We look forward to the day when, as a result of all the advice and mentoring that we have been able to give them, the Iraqis can take over full responsibility for the security of all areas of Iraq.
	The negotiations on the long-term bilateral relationship between Iraq and the United Kingdom, which the right hon. Gentleman also asked about, will continue over the summer and autumn months. I hope that when the House returns we will be able to report on their success. It is important to understand that the Iraqis want to receive support in a number of areas where we are giving specialist advice. The relationship will not be too dissimilar to one we have with other countries in the region, and it will be to the benefit of the UK, representing, as I have said, a further fundamental change of mission. I think that it is right for the Iraqis to have control over their own country's security, and it is also an acknowledgement, as the right hon. Gentleman said at the outset, of the great sacrifice made by British troops and of their professionalism and dedication. That is what has brought us to the point where we have been able to report progress today.

Dai Havard: The Prime Minister will know that I have visited Iraq three times in the past 12 months, most recently with the Select Committee only a few weeks ago, so I can attest to the changes taking place there. In consolidating those changes, my right hon. Friend refers to the bilateral arrangements to be struck with the Iraqis in parallel with those of the United States. We currently operate a detention and internment facility, whose legality is bound up with a UN resolution. The ending of that resolution is clearly important for the continuation of the facility and the protection of our forces who operate it. I have visited it on several occasions over the past few years, so I can say that it is a very well run facility, validated by the Red Cross. However, it is also important as we continue to help the Iraqis with their reconciliation

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I say to the hon. Gentleman, and to the House more generally, that he is yet to put a question? Time is limited and there is a lot of business to get through today. I am sure that the Prime Minister wants to respond to as many questions as possible, so it helps if they can be brief and to the point. That will enable many more Members to be satisfied; otherwise, I am afraid that many Members will be unhappy.

Gordon Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for visiting Iraq, for informing me of what he saw while he was there, and for his advice. He is absolutely right that the International Committee of the Red Cross has inspected the detention facilities and found them to be very good. He is also right that part of a UN resolution covers our presence in Iraq. That will be one of the issues to be discussed during negotiation on the bilateral relationship that we will have with Iraq in the future.

Iain Duncan Smith: As one who has supported our Iraq operations from the beginning, I am enormously pleased that the Prime Minister has been able to make this statement today. I believe that our troops should remain there until they are no longer required; there should be no artificial timetables.
	We all know that the real pressure on our troop numbers comes from the pressure to deploy into Afghanistan. Is not the reality that that pressure draws more on us because our allies in Europe, such as the French and the Germans, still refuse point blank to do what they voted for, which is to get into places like Helmand and provide some proper support for the Afghan Government? Is the Prime Minister minded to urge President Sarkozy to stop travelling around Europe telling everyone to raise a defunct treaty, and instead attempt to bully them into putting some troops on the ground to support us?

Gordon Brown: A few months ago, the French announced that they would put an extra 800 troops into Afghanistan. They will put them in eastern Afghanistan, which is a dangerous region, as well as the region where we are working, Helmand. That will enable American marines to come down into Helmand, so the reconfiguration that follows will be to the benefit of British troops. We have increased the number of troops available in Afghanistan and we are meeting our responsibilities in respect of equipment and staffing. We will continue to do what is right in both Iraq and Afghanistan to make sure that there is proper protection for British forces, who are doing a sterling job in both countries.

Kevan Jones: Three weeks ago, I visited Basra and Iraq for the sixth time with the Select Committee, and I can confirm that the security situation has been transformed. We met the training teams with the 14th division of the Iraqi army in Basra and the navy training teams down at Umm Qasr, and I have to say that they are doing a fantastic, first-rate job. I urge my right hon. Friend to resist those asking to have those troops withdrawn prematurely merely for the sake of the numbers, as that would be a great mistake not just for the troops, but for the future of Iraq.

Gordon Brown: That is exactly what I am saying. The training function that we have agreed to carry out will be completed. Simultaneously, we are working on the economic development front in Iraq and a plan will be published in the next few months. We are working to transfer control of the airport to civilian use, which should happen by the end of the year. We hopethere is a vote in the Iraqi Parliament todaythat provincial local elections will be announced later in the year. We are intent on completing the job that we started. The job that we have been doing over the past year, intensified in recent months, has involved embedding our troops with the Iraqi forces, and we believe that we will complete that job to our satisfaction and theirs.

Ian Taylor: As one of those who did not approve of our invasion of Iraq, I nevertheless welcome the Prime Minister's statement today and the progress that is at last being made there. However, will he comment specifically on the stories that al-Qaeda members who are currently in Iraq are moving back to the Pakistan border with Afghanistan? That will create serious problems unless the Government of Pakistan genuinely try to crack down on them. If they do not, those terrorists will increasingly cause problems for our troops in Helmand province.

Gordon Brown: The hon. Gentleman refers to the comments that General Petraeus made. There has been a great deal of success in some of the provinces in Iraq in forcing out those people who were associated with al-Qaeda. It is also true that there is a new worry about the Pakistan border and the infiltration of al-Qaeda into Afghanistan. We take that threat very seriously indeed, and it has led us to have conversations with the Pakistani Government about what they are doing to ensure law and order in the regions. I accept that, as al-Qaeda is forced out of Iraq, other problems will arise, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that we are making changes in Afghanistan to deal with a new function of the militias that are fighting us: instead of direct combat, they are fighting in a guerrilla form, which results in casualties. We must change our tactics so that we are properly prepared to tackle them.

Andrew Miller: Capacity building in the Iraqi navy is critical, but is any work going on in the investment conference to tackle the design and layout of the oil platforms? They are a little antiquated, to say the least, and their design makes them vulnerable.

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I pay tribute to all the armed forces training teams, who do not simply train the Iraqi army but undertake important work in naval exercises and in protecting the safety and security of the oil platforms. We are working with the Iraqis to help them to develop an oil industry, which should be one of the most successful in the world. Iraq has major oil reserves and it needs support for their development. The Basra development commission is intent on helping to develop not only the oil industry, but related industries around the port. I believe that British businesses, too, will see an opportunity to work with the commission on that.

Douglas Hogg: Did the right hon. Gentleman, when speaking to British servicemen, remind them that much of the fighting that has taken place was due to the Government's disastrous decision to disestablish the Iraqi army and police service? Did he remind them that, when they go to Afghanistan, they will be in much greater danger because of the Government's failure to give them proper equipment, and the Government's decision to deploy into Helmand province without getting proper assurances from other NATO allies about reinforcements?

Gordon Brown: First, let me tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we are training the Iraqi army and working with it so that it can build up its strength. We have already trained 20,000 members of the Iraqi armed forces, and the work in hand for the next few months is to train several thousand more. That is an important way to show that the Iraqi army will be suitable, able and equipped to carry out its tasks.
	As for Afghanistan, the right hon. and learned Gentleman, like me, recognises the difficulties that all countries face there. We are dealing with an insurgency and problems that have arisen from a change of tactic by the Taliban, but I believe that our armed forces are tackling that with great effectiveness and success. As for equipment, we have been able to meet the urgent operational requirements of the Army and the other forces. We have put aside, as a matter of policy, money to meet all the urgent operational requirements, which have run into substantial figures in the past few years. When the Army, the Navy or the Air Force make requests for us to meet those urgent operational requirements, we do our best to fulfil them.

David Crausby: Last year, the Prime Minister told the House that we planned to move to the second stage of overwatch, which would focus on training and mentoring. That plan appears to be in place. May I therefore urge him to take no notice of those who would have us lose our nerve now? Will he ensure that any second stage of overwatch is properly resourced, so that Britain continues to have a substantial influence for good in the region in the late stages of the campaign?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is also a member of the Select Committee. Again, I pay tribute to members of the Committee for their non-partisan work in going to Iraq, examining the facts, reporting on them and, I believe, giving a full and fair account of how the training function that we agreed several months ago works to the benefit of the Iraqi army in the short term, and makes for greater and better relationships between us and the Iraqi people for many years ahead. The Select Committee is right to say that we should work to finish the job of training. That is exactly what we intend to do: to finish the task that we started.

Bernard Jenkin: I thank the Prime Minister for quoting extensively from our Select Committee report and commend him for demonstrating the political will to see the operation in Iraq through, despite his understandable desire to draw down troops earlier than proved to be possible. However, the problem of overstretch does not go away, as the leader of the Liberal Democrats pointed out, and there is a question about whether either the commitments or the defence planning assumptions are wrong. Given that the defence planning assumptions have been exceeded in more years than they have not since they were drawn up in 1998, is not it time to revisit them? I doubt that Iraq will be the last place in which we are required to intervene, even if operations in Afghanistan continue.

Gordon Brown: I appreciate everything in the first part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. We were right to make the decisions that we have made. As his report shows, the training that the Ministry of Defence is undertaking of the Iraqi forces is yielding resultswe can see the improvement every week in the Basra area. The improvement is also due to the change of tactics in the west of Iraq.
	Of course, at all times we would like to do more with the defence budget, but it will be some 11 per cent. higher in real terms than it was in 1997. We have made major commitments of resources and capital in recent years and the defence budget rises every year. To be absolutely accurate, and to correct something that I said at Prime Minister's Question Time, the UK is the second highest spending nation on defence, behind only the United States of America. That shows that we have continued to make commitments on defence, and we will continue to do that in future. We will of course continue to examine the capital budget and the planning assumptions, but the hon. Gentleman cannot take away from us the fact that the defence budget has continued to rise, or the fact that we have fulfilled the urgent operational requirements of the ventures in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Gordon Prentice: How difficult is it for the Iraqi Government to recruit police officers, given that they are regularly targeted, and is corruption, which was endemic, still a problem in the police force? How many people are training police officers in Iraq?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it is important both to have an open and transparent policing operation in Iraq and that there is no corruption. Anything that leads to corruption is detrimental to the future of Iraq. However, he is wrong about applications to join the police force in Iraq: I am told that there is a waiting list to join. With others, we have trained 20,000 policemen and women, and we will continue to perform that vital training function. Just as we want a properly trained army, we want a properly trained police force that can conduct its duties.

Adam Price: Barack Obama has said that he will bring the last American soldier home by 16 months after he takes office. If the Prime Minister had made such a commitment, British soldiers would be coming home this summer, not in the spring of 2009 and 2010. In the light of his refusal to hold a proper inquiry into the Government's Iraq policy, will he explain here and now why, in contrast to the young Senator Obama, he got it so badly wrong about the necessity of the war in the first place, the difficulties of the occupation and, most important, the huge human cost in service and civilian casualties of the worst foreign policy error of any Government in more than 50 years?

Gordon Brown: Yes, I do acknowledge the sacrifice of the British men and women serving in Iraq, and the determination, resolution and commitment they have shown, but the important achievement from that is that Iraq is now a democracy. People voted for an elected Government, children are at school, people are enjoying health care and businesses are starting. That is an achievement. The hon. Gentleman asked about our proposals for the longer term: we want a bilateral defence relationship with Iraq through which we can support that country in the future, and that is exactly what we will be negotiating over the next few months.

Dari Taylor: I ask my right hon. Friend to compliment the contribution of the Territorial Army and reservists in Iraq, especially the personnel of the Medical Corps. Will he outline how we would have managed without their deployment in Iraq, and does he not agree that they have been a tremendous force for good?

Gordon Brown: I know that my hon. Friend takes a great interest in the TA and works very effectively at the local level to support the TA and the cadets who are trained in her area. Many of the 100,000 men and women who have served in Iraq have been TA members. When I have been in Iraq and when I met TA members at a reception for the 100th anniversary of the TA that we held last week, I have been able to thank them for their servicefor giving up their ordinary jobs, and for giving their time and expertise to the work of the armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. I thank them for what they have done. On the 100th anniversary of the TA, which started in the first world war, it is important to acknowledge the contribution of its members, which has continued throughout that century and is no less great now in the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude.

Andrew Robathan: Like the Chairman of the Defence Committee, I think it right to maintain our current high levels of troop deployment in Iraq, but it was absolutely wrong of the Prime Minister 10 months ago, when he was contemplating calling a general election and the Conservative party was holding its conference, to make the premature announcement that the troop number would be reduced to 2,500 by this spring. That was done for reasons of naked electoral and political advantage. Will the Prime Minister now apologise both to the armed forces and their families for misleading themI understand that I am allowed to say thatand to the British people?

Gordon Brown: No. It was right to reduce our armed forces numbers as we changed the task that they performed from combat to overwatch. We reduced the numbers by 1,000 at the time, from 5,500 to 4,500. It was also right to change our tactics, as military commanders advised us about what was happening on the ground in Basra. I have always said, and I repeat again today, that the decisions we make will be made on the advice of military commanders on the ground and by reviewing the situation on the ground. It is right, too, that we continue to embed our troops with the Iraqi forces in order to complete the training function. Notwithstanding what the hon. Gentleman has suggested, I hope that he supports the action we are now taking.

Nick Palmer: I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) on the role of the TA. The national mobilisation base in my constituency has worked hard to support that role, and we are very grateful for its efforts. With Iran's current position up for review, does the Prime Minister agree that as well as talking about the sanctions we will impose if it takes the wrong direction, it should be made clear that if Iran is willing to support the Shi'a-led Iraqi Government's efforts to achieve peace, that will be an important step towards normalising its relationship with the rest of the world?

Gordon Brown: I hope that Iran will be able to show that it does have a continuing and settled interest in a stable Iraq. I also hope that any attempt to support militias coming across the border to cause damage in Basra or elsewhere will be seen by the international community and by the Iranian Government as totally unacceptable. We continue to try to negotiate with Iran a successful way through the problem that has been created by Iran's breach of the non-proliferation treaty and defiance of the international community by attempting to gain nuclear weapons. I repeat that Iran has a choice: it can co-operate and gain access to civil nuclear power, or it can face isolation outside the international community.

Crispin Blunt: I do not think we can escape the fact that our involvement in Iraq over the past five years has come at an appalling political, economic and military cost to the United Kingdom. As the need for Operation Charge of the Knights made clear, there are still many lessons to be learned. When the Prime Minister went to Iraq in October, he did not predict that the Iraqis would have to go in and retake the streets from the militias after we had abandoned them. Will the Prime Minister commission an inquiry to be held at a time when he can be confident of still being Prime Minister?

Gordon Brown: The purpose of Operation Charge of the Knights was to get the militias out of Basra and the surrounding area. The operation was, of course, led by Prime Minister Maliki, but supported by UK and US forces. As a result of it, militias have been cleaned out of the area, but we must remain vigilant about the potential for militias either to come into Iraq from other countries, or to be involved in Basra itself. That is why we must strengthen the Iraqi forces.  [Interruption.] I have already answered the inquiry question. As the Ministry of Defence and our armed forces are in Iraq at present, and as they are doing vital jobs on behalf of our national security, I believe that now is not the right time to have an inquiry. Let us also remember that four Committees of this House or separate investigations have looked at Iraq over the past few years, and this morning we had new evidence on Iraq from the Defence Committee.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Prime Minister tell us what discussions he had while visiting Iraq about the probability of permanent British or American bases being established in Iraq and of there being a permanent military presence there?

Gordon Brown: We have no plans for that. What we want is a bilateral relationship with Iraq, whereby we can serve the needs of the country as the Iraqi Government see them, by agreement with the Iraqi Government. As my hon. Friend can clearly see, we are carrying out and discharging responsibilities that are of great benefit to the Iraqi nation. The training of Iraqi forces, support for the navy, and support in other areas that are important for the development of the Iraqi economy are carried out by our armed forces. We will continue to work with Iraq to help to build democracy, ensure security and ensure that Iraqis have a stake in their economic future.

John Stanley: Is it not the case that one of the most disturbing human rights trends in Iraq has been the extent to which the rights of women have deteriorated in parts of the country? The Prime Minister said in his statement that we must honour our obligations to the people of Iraq. What steps will the British Government take to ensure that we honour our obligations to the women of Iraq, given the deterioration in their rights since our invasion?

Gordon Brown: The accounts I have from Iraq, whether from Basra or from Baghdad, are that women are enjoying their freedom in Iraq. That is part of the Iraqi constitution. I will, of course, look into everything the right hon. Gentleman says and get back to him on the issue, but support for the rights of women is, of course, at the centre of the Iraqi constitution.

Laura Moffatt: Did my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have an opportunity to speak to forces members about using the resources that are available in Iraq, including those of our Territorial Army people, so that we bring in not only the professionalism of the British Army, but the skills from people's civilian jobs, to make sure that they are recycling and using and reusing every bit of the resources that they so desperately need in Iraq?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I know that people from her area are supporting the effort in Iraq. The work that has been done by our provincial reconstruction team and the Army in support of health, education and economic projects and getting the port in Iraq working shows the blend of skills that the TA and others in the Army have to offer the people of Iraq. I think it is true to say that the Army has played a very important role not only in the training of the Iraqi forces and in combat, but in the economic and social reconstruction of the country.

John Redwood: What action is the Prime Minister taking to persuade Senator Obama that he is wrong to want an early withdrawal from Iraq and to want a substantial strengthening of the position in Afghanistanwhich is the opposite of the Prime Minister's policygiven that the Senator might be President before the end of the year?

Gordon Brown: I had the chance to talk to Senator Obama about these issues when I met him in America, and I agree with him about Afghanistan: we must do more there, which is why we increased our numbers in that country to help the coalition effort. That is also why I have said all along that there should be proper burden sharing in the coalition, so that other countries are in a position to contribute to the effort in Afghanistan as well.
	I accept that Afghanistan requires long-term action, not only at military level, but in training the police, in making sure that there is economic reconstruction and in giving people in Afghanistan a stake in the future. All of that is part of the strategy being pursued by America and it is what Senator Obama has said we need to do. We need to concentrate on how we can make sure that the future of Afghanistan is one where there is more peace, where we have dealt with the Taliban and al-Qaeda and where there is economic and social reconstruction of the country.

Neil Gerrard: The Prime Minister referred to the millions of Iraqis who remain refugees. Did he have any discussions on the question of returning asylum seekers to Iraq? Does he accept that many of those who fled Iraq fear that it would still not be possible to guarantee their safety in many areas of Iraq if they were to be returned now?

Gordon Brown: I think it is true to say that many of the refugees who left Iraq are now returning; the Defence Secretary has told me that 600 doctors recently returned to Iraq. There are an estimated 2 million refugees, many of whom are in Jordan and surrounding areas, and, of course, it is important for the future of Iraq that those people who have skills to offer to build its economy and society can return as soon as possible.

Mark Lancaster: I am a member of the Territorial Army that the Prime Minister is so keen to praise and someone who is proud to have been on operational service three times in the past eight years of this Government, and, as such, he has made my blood boil today. Everybody knows that last October's announcement of troop withdrawal numbers was a cynical, political manipulation. Will he show just an ounce of the courage being shown by our brave servicemen and women and apologise to the House today?

Gordon Brown: Every decision that we have announced has been based on the best military advice that we can have. It was right to reduce the numbers from 5,500 to 4,500. The reason why we did that was because we were movingI suspect that the hon. Gentleman agreed with this policyfrom direct combat to overwatch. It was also right to listen to the advice of military commanders when the situation changed on the ground in BasraI have always said thatand to take the right decision, which was to support the training of Iraqi forces after the operation. I think that he actually supports the decisions that we made.

Greg Hands: The Prime Minister quoted at length the report from the Defence Committee, but could he also take a look at another recent publicationthe annual report and accounts of the Ministry of Defence? They show the worrying condition of our armed forces; fewer than half of our military units are able to deploy in an emergency, and that is the lowest proportion ever recorded by the MOD. When will the Prime Minister examine overstretch in our armed forces and do something about it?

Gordon Brown: What the hon. Gentleman is saying reflects the fact that large numbers of our troops are on operations, in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as in other parts; they have been in parts of Europe, as well as in the Falkland Islands and in Ireland. He might also acknowledge, as the White Paper acknowledged last Thursday, when we showed what we can do to help our armed forces and acknowledge the service that they give, that we have increased their pay; that there are more resources for our military personnel; that we have increased the hospital and health provision that is available; and that we have made sure that accommodation is properly invested in for the first time. All those things are happening because we recognise the contribution that our armed forces make and we are trying to do our best by them.

Peter Bone: I congratulate the Prime Minister on the positive statement that he has been able to make and on the work that the Defence Secretary has done in this area. May I ask the Prime Minister specifically about one of the key tasks to which he referred? Why has there been a delay in providing for local elections, and could he update the House on what is going to happen?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that. I hope that the whole House will want to acknowledge the work that the Defence Secretary has done, both in visits to Iraq and Afghanistan, and in supporting our troops. The provincial elections require a law to be passed by Iraqi Members of Parliament. I understand that that is probably being discussed today, as we are discussing Iraq in this House, by Members of the Iraqi Assembly. They have to make the decision to pass the lawas they must make the decision on the hydrocarbons law. I hope that they will do that, and that will lead to the provincial elections taking place.

Graham Stuart: What measures have been taken to improve the security around the foreign visits of the Prime Minister's team, given the loss by one of the team of a BlackBerry in Shanghai earlier this year?

Gordon Brown: I want to acknowledge the great work that the security forces do in protecting all those who visit Iraq, Afghanistan and other areas. I think that the whole House will want to acknowledge the work of our security services.

John Baron: Any escalation in the tension between Iran and Israel will have implications for our troops in Iraq. Given the recent indications that the Israelis are considering a unilateral military strike, can the Prime Minister confirm, once and for all, what the British Government's position would be if such a strike were to occur?

Gordon Brown: I have already outlined the priority that we attach to the negotiations that are taking place between the E3 plus 3 group and Iran. It is important to recognise that the diplomatic effort that is being made is to get Iran to the table to discuss the proposals that we have made. We are prepared to increase the sanctions that we place on Iran if it is not able to reach an agreement with us. That is the chosen method of the whole international community, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the international coalition that includes China and Russia, as well as the European Union and America, is one that has held together through three resolutions. I believe that if Iran gives a negative answer to the proposals that have been made, we will impose further sanctions on Iran, and I hope that the whole House would support that.

SATs Testing

Edward Balls: I would like to update the House before it rises on the delivery of this year's national curriculum tests, following my appearance before the Select Committee last week and my letter to its Chairman yesterday. I would like to provide an update to the House on five areas: progress on marking; marking quality and appeals; contractual discussions between the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and ETS Europe; the Sutherland inquiry; and the future of national curriculum tests. I shall continue to update Parliament regularly over the recess. I will write weekly with an update to the Chair of the Select Committee, copying my letter to Opposition spokespeople and the Speaker and placing a copy in the Libraries of both Houses.
	First, on marking, the first priority is to ensure that schools receive their 2008 results in an orderly way, with the minimum of delay. This morning, in a written statement, I provided the House with the latest information that the QCA and ETS Europe have given me on results released to schools. The total of scripts marked and released has now risen to more than 98 per cent. of marks at key stage 2, and at key stage 3 some 88 per cent. of marks are now available94.1 per cent. in maths, 93.4 per cent. in science and 76.9 per cent. in English. QCA and ETS Europe had made a commitment that all schools would have received their marks on 8 July, and they have both apologised to schools for the delay. I share the frustration and anger of teachers, children and parents about the delays in the release of this year's test resultsthis should not have happened.
	Secondly, on marking quality, I have been advised by Ofqualthe independent regulator of qualifications, exams and tests in Englandthat the quality of marking is at least as good as in previous years, and justifies the issuing of results. Ofqual has assured me that it continues to monitor the quality of the marking of the tests, and that it will consider the evidence in relation to any problems that are brought to its attention and act accordingly. I shall continue to update Parliament on the progress with Ofqual's work on marking quality. The QCA has extended the timetable for appeals to 10 September or 10 days after the start of term, whichever is later.
	Thirdly, QCA has confirmed, in a statement over the weekend, that it is in contractual discussions with ETS Europe following these unacceptable delays. QCA states that it is considering all available options to allow the timely conclusion of the work for the 2008 test series and to secure a successful 2009 programme. The contract with ETS Europe was drawn up and has been managed by QCA, at arm's length from Ministers, to ensure the independence and objectivity of the testing regime. Any contractual discussions are legally a matter for the QCA and ETS Europe. Those discussions are continuing, and they are highly sensitivecommercially, legally and financially. At this stage it is very important and in the public interest that QCA should be able to conclude those discussions in a timely, orderly and rigorous fashion, in order to safeguard the interests of pupils, schools and taxpayers.
	I am advised that ministerial intervention or interference at this stage, including public statements intended to influence the outcome of these contractual discussions, would be inappropriate and would jeopardise the public interest. In particular, it is very important that nothing is said to shift responsibility or redress from where it properly falls under the contract. I hope that the House will understand why I cannot comment further at this stage.
	Fourthly, following the publication of the terms of reference last week, I can confirm to the House that Lord Sutherland has started work on his independent inquiry. It is important to allow an orderly completion of this year's national curriculum tests, so Lord Sutherland has told me that he intends to collect evidence in August and September before reporting publicly when the House returns in the autumn. The independent inquiry will look at all the issues surrounding the test delays, including the specification and procurement of the contract with ETS by QCA. That will include the role played by Ministers and my Department and the arm's length relationship between the QCA and Ministers and departmental officials in that regard.
	Finally, on the wider question of testing and assessment, I have welcomed the Select Committee's recent report and its support for the principle of externally assessed national tests. But, as I said to the Committee last week, the current testing and assessment regime is not set in stone. Indeed, in the children's plan we highlighted the potential opportunities presented by our Making Good Progress pilot, involving 500 schools, where pupils are entered for single-level tests when their teacher judges them to be ready and at the level appropriate for them.
	It is important that we evaluate the case for change before making decisions. As I said to the Committee last week, the pilot runs to next July and is being externally evaluated. I have asked for an interim report in the autumn, and I will publish it to Parliament, but we must not return to the situation where school accountability was weak, parents lacked good information about their child's progress and, as a result, many children fell behind in their education and development. That is why it is so important that we complete the delivery of this year's test results, ensure the delivery of the 2009 national curriculum tests and secure public confidence that the system is being appropriately managed, regulated and scrutinised at arm's length from the Government.
	I am determined that we learn the lessons of this year's experience. I am confident that the work of Ofqual and Lord Sutherland will be of great value in that regard, and I commend this statement to the House.

Michael Gove: May I first of all thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for finding time before we break up for this statement? I also thank the Secretary of State for taking the opportunity to update us today on the latest twists in this terrible fiasco. I wish to underline our sympathy for the pupils, parents, heads and teachers whose summer has been blighted by the chaos surrounding the marking of the key stage 2 and key stage 3 tests.
	Under the American contractor ETS, there have been chronic delays in getting all papers marked, the marking itself has been flawed, with reports of teenagers and cocktail waitresses being approached to help meet deadlines, and papers of widely differing quality being given the same mark. The Secretary of State says that it is no worse than every year. Does not that just underline the incompetence at the heart of this Government when it comes to education?
	The Secretary of State rightly acknowledges that this situation is unacceptable, but what parents and teachers want to know is whether he will take responsibility. He has consistently argued that responsibility for this affair rests in hands other than hisat arm's length. But can he confirm that civil servants from his Departmentspecifically, the director general of schoolswere there at the meeting when the contract was awarded to ETS? Can the Secretary of State tell us what, if anything, civil servants told him about that procurement process? Can he tell us what action, if any, he then took to ensure the safe delivery of testing?
	When I informed the Secretary of State in the House on 19 May that ETS had a record of missed deadlines and mistaken marking in the US, he confessed he had no knowledge of their recordeven though he is accountable to Parliament for the testing regime. How could the Secretary of State have known so little about the company to which we were entrusting a multi-million pound contract when his own director general of schools was there when the contract was awarded? The chief executive of the QCA says that he is entirely satisfied with the process that awarded ETS this contract. Is the Secretary of State?
	I note what the Secretary of State says about the ongoing contractual negotiations, but does he not agree that when companies with public sector contracts fail to live up to their promises they should not be bailed out by the taxpayer? Does he not agree that any contract signed with a company that means we have to pay them to escape is a contract that could only have been signed by a Government who are neither prudent nor competent?
	As soon as ETS took up its contract, examiners started to register their concerns. The standardisation process, which ensures consistent marking, was flawed, with highly experienced markers being failed and other, much weaker candidates, being passed despite registering a worryingly high number of mistakes. Worse, the failsafe system to deal with bad markingthe borderline process which allows for papers to be remarkedwas scrapped. Given the high number of complaints of inconsistent and error-strewn marking in this year's tests, how can the Secretary of State have confidence in the quality of marking? Can he give an absolute guarantee that full key stage 2 results will be published on 5 August and key stage 3 results on 12 August? And can he give an absolute guarantee that heads and teachers can be confident that the results generated by ETS will be robust enough to guarantee accurate pupil scores and reliable league tables?
	In assessing the credibility of everything that has been said today, it is crucial that we also know just what action Ministers took when the flaws in ETS's operation became impossible to ignore. When was the Secretary of State first made aware that there were major problems with this year's marking and what actions did he take? In March, the chief executive of the QCA warned the Secretary of State that the introduction of new IT by ETS carried risks. What steps did the Secretary of State take to reduce those risks?
	On 14 May this year, the head of the new exams watchdog Ofqual wrote to the Secretary of State to outline her priorities. In his reply, the Secretary of State said nothing about the importance of getting this year's SATs right, and instead said that the new single-level testing and the diploma programme were the priorities. Why, when teachers and examiners were already warning of problems with the tests, did the Secretary of State not ask the regulator specifically to address those concerns?
	On 19 May, I and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) again raised the concerns being voiced by teachers and examiners. The Secretary of State said that he would monitor the situation closely. Then on 4 July, Ministers had to acknowledge that the problems with marking were so great that the publication of results would have to be delayed. Can the Secretary of State tell us what specific steps he took after 19 May to get SATs testing back on track, what meetings he had, which interventions he authorised and which officials he pursued? Or did he, like an exam candidate who has not done his homework, just cross his fingers, hope for the best and pray that he would not be asked any tough questions?
	We all await Lord Sutherland's report with interest, but when the Secretary of State's predecessor Estelle Morris ran into trouble with a marking fiasco, she commissioned a former chief inspector to issue an interim report within a week. Why is the Secretary of State not insisting on similar urgency even now? Is he afraid of the results? Has not his behaviour throughout this affair been characterised by indifference, high-handedness and inattention? Is it not the case that his Department failed to ensure that contracts had been awarded properly, failed to heed warning signs and failed to act quickly to avert a fiasco that every teacher in the land could see coming? Do not pupils, parents and teachers deserve better than a Secretary of State who fails the most basic test of allcompetence in office?

Edward Balls: There is no doubt in my mind that parents, teachers and pupils deserve better than the service that they have had in recent weeks from ETS Europe and from the QCA. I have said clearly that I very much regret what has happened and the inconvenience to schools and pupils. Indeed, I share the frustration and anger of teachers, children and parents that this should have happened.
	The QCA and ETS have both apologised. However, as I have said, this is a commercial and legal matter, and I will not say anything that either shifts responsibility or redress from where it should properly fall, or that would influence the outcome of the current contractual discussions. What I say in the House today has practical and financial consequences, and for me to indulge in the rhetoric and grandstanding of the hon. Gentleman would be ill-advised and against the public interest: I am not going to do that.
	I am happy to answer the many scattergun questions that the hon. Gentleman asked. It is important to answer them now, but we will also have the inquiry by Lord Sutherland, which I set up immediately and which will provide independent answers to all those questions.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the length of time that the process will take. It will take so much time because it is important that we go through all that has happened and get it right. He might not have observed that the difference between this case and the Tomlinson inquiry in 2002 is that there was no contractual, legal or commercial issue at stake in the delivery of those tests. There is such an issue at stake in this case, and that is why it is important that things are handled carefully. Lord Sutherland has said that he wants to work to this timetable. I am happy to let him work to the timetable that he thinks is right to get to the heart of what has occurred.
	The hon. Gentleman asked me about the procurement process. That process was handled at arm's length from Ministers. At no point have Ministers seen the contracts drawn up between the QCA and ETS. At no point were Ministers consulted on those contracts[Hon. Members: Why not?] Opposition Members ask why not, but it is not possible for the Government to be accountable for the results of tests while at the same time being actively involved in the management of the marking of those tests. That would not command public confidence. That is why the right way, which is how this has been done for a number of years, is for the contract to be managed at arm's length by the QCA. That is what it did in this case.
	I am accountable to the House for schools policy, including the delivery of results. However, the responsibility for the delivery of those results is a matter for the QCA and ETS under contract. Lord Sutherland will look carefully at why that delivery did not happen. Clear processes were followed at the time, including the Office of Government Commerce's carrying out gateway reviewsat least one, carried out two years agoto ensure that the contract was negotiated in line with the remit set by our Department and in line with best practice in order to deliver efficiency, value for money and the best procurement of the contract. Those processes were given a green light by the OGC and that was reported to Ministers.
	All the details of the procurement process, including the role played by Ministers and officials, will be considered by Lord Sutherland in his report. The reality of government is that Ministers do not interfere with the procurement and marking of tests and test results. We have stuck to that fundamental principle.
	Earlier this year, there were early difficulties with the marking and with some of the computer programmes for the test results. That was raised with our Department in advance of our exchanges in the House of Commons in May. They were raised in the House on that day, too. I immediately sought reassurances. In the following weeks, the Minister for Schools and Learners had a series of meetings. Contingencies were put in place for the delivery of those results. I had a meeting on 2 June with Ken Boston, the chief executive of the QCA, in which I was reassured that all the actions that we had asked for in the days after 19 May had been taken. We were assured that the actions in that period had got things on track.
	Despite a series of meetings in May and June, it was only on 1 July that the QCA brought to our attention the fact that the tests would not be delivered on time, because the marking was behind and because of problems with the flow of data to the computers on which they are presented. We immediately asked for that to be investigated by the QCA and, two days later, having satisfied ourselves that that was the position, we announced in a letter to the Select Committee, reporting to Parliament, the Library and Opposition spokesmen, that we would delay the publication of key stage 2 results until 15 June and the publication of key stage 3 results until later in that week. At that time, we announced the independent inquiry. We discussed the inquiry's terms of reference with Ofqual and with Lord Sutherland. That was published when I appeared before the Select Committee the following week.
	At the same time, Ofqual reassured me on 4 July, and has done since, that the quality of marking is at least as high as in previous yearsalthough that is monitored closelyand that therefore it is appropriate for those results to be published in August. The final decision on publication will be made on the advice of the independent statistician in our Department and on the basis of the views of Ofqual in the coming days and weeks.
	The hon. Gentleman obviously does not know how the regime works in practice, but 10 million scripts are marked by over 1.2 million pupils in every year

Michael Gove: What?

Edward Balls: The scripts are done by pupils, not marked by pupils; I am sorry about that faux pas. There are 1.2 million pupils and 10 million scripts, and every year there are some difficulties with the marking of those scripts. That is why we have an appeals process and why there are appeals every year. Of course, every year there are problems in the marking of the scripts and things get sorted out.
	The advice I have received from the QCA and others is that the volume of complaints received through the helplines has been similar to the volume received in recent years. Ofqual is looking at that, and Lord Sutherland will consider it. No evidence has been provided at this point to suggest that there is any reason to delay the publication of the marks. It would be the wrong thing to do for the future of testing in our country.
	As for the hon. Gentleman's comments about teenagers and cocktail waitresses marking tests, he has no evidence that any teenager or cocktail waitress has marked any test. If he wants to provide that information to Lord Sutherland's inquiry, I am sure that it will be considered. Once again, we will find that behind the rhetoric there is no substance to the hon. Gentleman's allegation.
	We have an independent inquiry. Sensitive contractual discussions are going on at the moment. All aspects of the matter will be considered closely. It is important that we take the right decisions this year so that we can secure confidence in the future of the testing regime. Rather than undermining confidence, the hon. Gentleman should support the work that we are doing with the independent inquiry. He should support the work that the QCA is doing in order to get the best outcome in these discussions. Rather than undermining confidence, he should act more like a statesman in these matters.

David Laws: I hope that notwithstanding those comments the Secretary of State will accept that if we are to have a high-stakes national testing system we must have a high-quality marking system that enjoys confidence. I hope that the Secretary of State would acknowledge that this year's marking of the key stage 2 and 3 tests has been nothing short of a complete shambles.
	The Secretary of State acknowledged that he gave an assurance to this House more than two months ago that the key stage tests were on track, yet in spite of that reassurance 130,000 scripts for key stage 3 English have yet to be marked. Is he prepared to accept some responsibility on his part and on that of his ministerial team for the failure to act in that two-month period? Interestingly, he acknowledged a moment ago that he and his ministerial colleagues were aware of the problems before he made the statement in the House on 19 May that the tests were on track. Will he tell us in his response when he and his ministerial colleagues were first made aware of the problems that there have been this year?
	On the issue of the reliability of marking, is the Secretary of State not extraordinarily complacent and very premature to assume that we can have confidence in this year's key stage test marking? That is particularly the case in the light of the number of complaints that there have already been about key stage 2 English and that there are likely to be about key stage 3 English tests when they are marked and sent out. Will he confirm that the assessment that has been made by Ofqual, which he seems so keen to rely on, appears to be only a somewhat cursory assessment of the processes that have been used and not of the results? Schools that end up having to appeal against the results could face costs of 6.50 per script or 180 per school or per set of results. Will he consider waiving those fees this year so that schools in this country do not end up paying for the incompetence of the Government and ETS? On ETS, does he accept that it is fairly clear from all the evidence so far that ETS has demonstrated unfitness to run the contract this year?
	Will the Secretary of State tell us whether any payments have been made so far to ETS out of the extraordinary 165 million that the Government will pay to that company over the next five years to administer the tests?
	Can he also tell us, without going into the detail of the contracts that have been signed, whether the QCA and the Government have the power to cancel ETS's contract without paying penalties if it can be demonstrated that ETS has acted in a negligent and incompetent way in administering the test this year?
	On the time scale for the Sutherland inquiry, the Secretary of State has given us the usual ministerial vagueness, saying that the report will be delivered in the autumn. Can he be a little clearer about when he expects the report to come back? Can he indicate the latest date by which it would be necessary for the Government to make a decision if they are to put in place a new contractor for the 2009 tests, given the sensitivity of the time scales involved?
	On the future of the testing regime, I think the Secretary of State said that the Select Committee was supportive of some form of national testing, and indeed it was, but it was also extremely critical of the existing testing regime. In his comments at the end of his statement about single-level tests and other adjustments that could be made, there was a sense of the deckchairs being shuffled around on the Titanic, given what we have seen with the marking of the tests this year and the much wider criticisms that have been made. Nobody is suggesting going back to a system of zero accountability, but when it is clear that the testing regime is collapsing under its own grotesque weight, do we not need a more fundamental review of that regime than the one that the Secretary of State is hinting at? Do we not need to axe some of the unhelpful and irrelevant tests, such as those at key stage 3, which have a low value in terms of school accountability and pupil assessment? Should we not put some of the enormous amount of money that could be saved by reducing the scale of testing into early diagnosis and early intervention to address some of the root causes of the challenges faced by so many young people in our education system today?

Edward Balls: I am a bit confused. Today, the hon. Gentleman is calling for a review of national testing and its future; yesterday, he said:
	There is no need for endless reviews about the future of the national tests.
	I am not sure whether he is calling today for a different review from the one that he rejected yesterday. To be fair to him, however, we have different and principled positions: I believe that it is important that we have continued externally validated national curriculum tests, and he does nothe calls them grotesque and he wants to abolish them.
	I should say to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) that we no longer have any idea what the Conservative party's policy on externally validated tests is. I guess that we will have to wait for the outcome of its inquiry under Richard Sykes before we get more elucidation from the hon. Gentleman. However, the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) and I have different views. I am happy to reform, but I want to keep externally validated tests, and it is really important for parents, teachers and the Government that we do so.
	The hon. Gentleman asks whether we will abolish the 6.50 per script appeals charge. As he will know, there is a 6.50 charge only if the school fails in its appeal; if it succeeds, it does not pay a charge. Of course it is sensible to keep that charge in place, but if more appeals are successful, schools will not pay more charges. As I saidI am not being complacent about thisOfqual has advised me on the basis of its work so far that there has not been a decline in marking quality, but it has also said that it continues to keep the issue under the review, and that is its role. That shows that I was right to introduce the principle of an independent regulatorOfquallast year so that it could play that role precisely.
	The hon. Gentleman asked when we became aware of the issues before us, and we were of course aware of them. The Schools Minister and I were aware of the problems that had occurred with ETS Europe before our exchange in the House of Commons on 19 May. Lord Sutherland will look into the detail of all this. We also took repeated and regular action in the following weeks in discussions with QCA, but, again, Lord Sutherland will look at that in his inquiry. I hope that he will report as soon as possible once he has collected his evidence in August and September. I hope that that will be in October, but, for today, I will say that it will be in the autumn, because I do not want to pre-empt his timetable, as that is for him to decide. However, I am clear that the sooner he can complete his report, the better.
	Finally, the hon. Gentleman asks at what point we should make decisions about the contract for the 2009 tests. He tries to lure me into providing a commentary on the discussions that are currently under way. He asks me to use words such as incompetent, but I am not going to get into that. As I explained very clearly, the advice to me is that to secure the best interests of the taxpayer, schools and pupils, the right thing for me to do today is not to comment on discussions that are ongoing and very sensitive, so I will not comment on them. Obviously, however, the sooner information can be provided to the House, the better.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have already been over half an hour on the statement and an awful lot of people are seeking to catch my eye. Could I please now appeal for one crisp question and, hopefully, a crisp answer?

Phyllis Starkey: May I pass on to the Secretary of State the concerns expressed to me at the weekend by parents and students, including a young constituent called Emma Hoare, about the quality of the marking and the lack of reassurance that they obtained from the TV appearance by an ETS spokesperson, who simply did not seem to grasp the seriousness of the issue? Can Ofqual take into account the need to reassure the public, as well as the Secretary of State, about the quality of these tests?

Edward Balls: My hon. Friend is quite right. One reason why I acted last autumn was that, in my judgment, there was a conflict of interest in the same bodythe QCAbeing responsible for contracting to deliver the tests and also acting as the independent regulator of quality. That is why we pulled those two roles apart and why we are legislating for Ofqual. Ofqual is giving the assurances, and it is monitoring the situation closely. There are always some problems with marking every year, but the advice to me is that, so far, there have not been more problems than in previous years. Ofqual is keeping that under review and looking at it closely, and I will report regularly to the House.

Julie Kirkbride: Like the rest of the country, the Secretary of State must have seen the two published test papers in English that appeared in the national newspapers last week. Can he tell us why the public and the House should have any confidence in the marking of those test papers, when one, which was clearly well written and accurately spelled, was given a very similar mark to the other, which was poorly written and poorly spelled? For the record, can he tell us his personal opinion of those two papers and the marks that they received?

Edward Balls: Like the hon. Lady, I have no confidence in the marking of those two particular scripts. I am sure that the head teacher of Moss Side primary will be making an appeal. There are appeals every year when the marking goes wrong. The question that we have to judge is not whether there has been a problem in an individual casethat is for the appeals processbut whether there has been a systemic problem of marking quality. As of today, no evidence has been provided to me of a systemic problem of marking quality, but we will keep the issue under review.

Fiona Mactaggart: Is the Secretary of State aware of the concern among teachers about the quality of the tests themselves? When I visited three primary schools in Slough, I found that the teachers were not particularly concerned about the results, although they were angry that they had not got them yet. However, they were very keen to tell me that the extended writing test at key stage 2 was ethnically biased and not appropriate for the pupils of Slough. Those teachers are also concerned, and this will affect every constituency, about how the RAISE systemthe system for reporting and analysis for improvement through school self-evaluationfor tracking pupil progress will be affected by what has happened and by the quality of the tests, which look at individual questions.

Edward Balls: I hear my hon. Friend's concerns. She will understand that the tests are not set by Ministers or by my Department, but at arm's length by the QCA. I will make sure that her views on those issues are expressed to the QCA. We need to make sure at all times that we have the highest standards of test setting. We also need to make sure that we have a curriculum in primary schools that is suited to the needs of our 21st century society. That is why Sir Jim Rose is reviewing the primary curriculum. Obviously, that will impact on tests in the future.

Mark Francois: I listened carefully to the Secretary of State's rather extraordinary statement, which could best be summarised as saying, This is absolutely nothing to do with me. I'm just the Secretary of State in charge of the Department. Is it not the truth that this is a complete fiasco, that it has happened on his watch and that ultimately the buck rests with him and no one else?

Edward Balls: As I said very clearly, I am accountable to Parliament for schools policy, and that includes the delivery of the tests. I was clear about that today, and I was clear about it last week when I appeared before the Select Committee. However, the responsibility for delivering those tests lies contractually with ETS Europe. A contract was drawn up with the QCA at arm's length from Ministers, and rightly so, because that is the only way to inspire public confidence in the objectivity of test setting that is independent of ministerial interference. I am clearly accountable for setting the regime, but the responsibility lay with ETS Europe, and the question that is being discussed today is whether those responsibilities have been properly discharged.

Barbara Keeley: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I have written to him about a primary school in my constituency and the issue of marking quality. The school has achieved key stage 2 results of 74 per cent. in maths, which is good for our area of Salford, but its English results, which were expected to be 70 per cent., were only 34 per cent. That is having quite an impact on the English teachers. The school has checked with the Salford school improvement service, which cannot see any reason for the gap between what was expected and what has actually happened. The school is concerned about what will happen to its reputation across the summer holidays, and about the children who are transferring to high school with those unexpectedly poor results. What advice should I, as its local MP, be giving to the school? How should it proceed to manage this matter across the school holidays?

Edward Balls: I would advise my hon. Friend to encourage the school to appeal. In a case where it is felt that there is a problem across all the test papers, the school should lodge a group appeal rather than individual appeals. That appeal will be looked at separately and independently, and rightly so, because it is important that the appeals process works in an orderly way, as it does every year. I would encourage my hon. Friend to advise that primary school to appeal.

Graham Stuart: The Secretary of State has said that he regrets the situation, and he has accepted the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) that, as Secretary of State, he is in overall charge of education policy and of this testing. Yet, before the Select Committee and today in the House of Commons, as the person at the top with whom the buck stops, he has signally failed to take the opportunity to apologise. Will he do so now to all the parents, children and schools that have been so badly let down?

Edward Balls: I have to sayand I shall say it for the third time to the hon. Gentlemanthat I am advised that ministerial intervention or interference at this stage in a contractual discussion would be the wrong thing to do. It is important that nothing is said to shift responsibility or redress from where it properly falls under the contract. I said in my statement that, I hope that the House will understand why I cannot comment further at this stage. Clearly, however, some Members did not understand why I cannot comment at this stage, but that is still the policy that I am going to pursue, because that is the legal advice that I have been given.

Andrew Slaughter: The issue of procurement, including price, and the issue of culpability, involving the discussions between the QCA and ETS, go to the heart of the matter. If the Secretary of State will not comment on those issues now, will he do so in due course? On the quality of marking will he ensure that the independent inquiry looks at the issue of appeals, including numbers of appeals and successful appeals, to see whether his point about quality being maintained is upheld?

Edward Balls: The body that is responsible for regulating the appeals process and ensuring the quality of marking and the quality of appeals is Ofqual, and that is really its responsibility. Clearly, Lord Sutherland will look at any issue that he wants to, but in the first instance, that is a matter for Ofqual. Lord Sutherland will look at all aspects of the procurement process, including how the contract was specified and procured, and that will include the input from departmental officials and Ministers in my Department in setting the remit. He will look at all those issues and report publicly. Of course I will comment, but I have said today that I will not comment on the details of this process while the commercial negotiations are occurring, because they are financially and legally very sensitive indeed.

David Heath: I suspect that a letter I have received from Christine Glen, the head teacher at Wincanton primary school in my constituency, is typical of many. She uses words such as fiasco, incompetent and slapdash, and deplores the quality of the marking of scripts that she has received. She makes the important point that, when pupils have worked up to or beyond national expectations all year and are then given a disastrous mark in an exam, it has a very unfortunate effect not only on the pupils but on their future career at secondary school. If that pattern is replicated across the countryand it sounds as though it iswould it not be better to declare this year's SATs null and void, and to allow the teachers, who have the expertise, the competence and the knowledge of their pupils, to make individual assessments?

Edward Balls: The answer to that question is no. That would be quite the wrong thing to do in the interests of children and young people in our country. That is why I have rejected the Liberal Democrats' advice to scrap externally marked SATs. The right thing to do in the case that the hon. Gentleman describes would be for the head teacher to appeal. The appeals process will work properly, as it does. If there is a problem, it needs to be sorted out at the appeals stage. As I said earlier, there is no evidence being provided to me at this stage by Ofqual that there has been a decline in marking quality, although of course there are problems with marking every year. That is why we have an appeals process. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will encourage the head teacher in his constituency to appeal.

Brian Jenkins: Without prejudging the outcome of any inquiry, may I inform my right hon. Friend that anyone in the industry will tell him that we simply do not have a sufficient number of qualified exam markers in this country? That is the problem. Either we get more markers or we balance the work load across the yearwhich would he prefer?

Edward Balls: It is essential that we have enough qualified markers, and that depends on the rates of pay that the markers are paid to do their job. As my hon. Friend may know, the payments to markers were increased during this process in order to bring in more markers. I am told that we have enough qualified markers; the question is whether they are marking the tests. Lord Sutherland will look at all these matters, but I think that in this case not enough markers were engaged at an early stage.

Michael Penning: Teachers, parents and pupils will be astonished to hear the Secretary of State say that he is unable to say sorry because of the legal advice that he has received. Will he publish that legal advice today?

Edward Balls: I have said that I very much regret what has happened, and I have explained clearly that the advice to me is that I should not comment on anything that would prejudice responsibility. That is the legal advice that I have been given. I have made it clear that I am accountable, but the responsibility lies with the QCA and with ETS Europe. I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman is trying to make comments that would shift that responsibility.

David Taylor: Having called for this statement on two successive points of order, yesterday and two weeks ago, I am pleased that the Secretary of State has now come to the House. With his well-developed political antennae, he will understand the alarm and dismay that will be present in 20,000 staff rooms and in 1 million families. Will he at least aim to write to those 20,000 schools at some point in this process to explain what has happened? At that time, will he explain what has happened to the QCA due diligence report into ETS, whose voracity has clearly exceeded its competence to undertake this hugely important task?

Edward Balls: The large majority of primary and secondary schools received their marks on time, so my hon. Friend is wrong to say that this has caused consternation in 20,000 staff rooms around the country. As I have said, however, I regret the fact that some schools received their results late. Some schools are still waiting for the full suite of their results, and that is something that needs to be sorted out. Indeed, it is being discussed today between the QCA and ETS Europe.

Annette Brooke: Head teachers have reported the need to check their SATs results against the teachers' assessments. I thought that the purpose of the national tests was to check the teachers' assessments. Is it not therefore time that we had more confidence in the teachers' assessments, particular at key stage 3?

Edward Balls: As the hon. Lady will know, because we discussed this in the Select Committee last week, it is one of the purposes of the Making Good Progress pilots to allow more teacher discretion in setting the level of tests for a child to take. These tests play more than one role, however. They are an aid to teacher assessment, and they also provide a way of allowing parents to see the independently validated progress of their child. They also provide a way in which we, and the hon. Lady, can compare performance school by school. All those functions can be performed only if we have universal, externally validated tests. However, that does not mean that we cannot make changes to give more discretion to teachers, and I am keen to do that if the evaluation suggests that it will work.

Philip Hollobone: Given the lack of confidence in the system and the likely increase in the number of appeals, what extra resources are being put into the appeals process?

Edward Balls: The advice to me from the QCA is that the appeals process will deal with the volume of appeals and, as I have set out, the longer timetable will allow schools more time. It is very important that the QCA and Ofqual ensure that the appeals process works in a proper, orderly and timely way. That is very much in their minds at the moment.

Bob Spink: In this as in so many other areas, smaller or less interfering government is much better. Will the Secretary of State change his policy so that there is less externally validated testing? We should trust teachers more: they are excellent, and they have the right judgment about children in their care. Trusting them more, especially around key stage 3, would save a lot of money and anguish.

Edward Balls: I just explained to Liberal Democrat colleagues why I disagree with the approach that the hon. Gentleman sets out. I should like Making Good Progress to lead to more teacher discretion, but it would not be right for parents to move away from externally validated tests. I disagree with him, and believe that the information from the tests is a very important part of our drive to raise standards in primary and secondary schools. On this matter, we will have to agree to disagree.

Paul Rowen: Given that Ofqual is a new creation, what is the basis for the Secretary of State's assertion that the quality of marking is at least as good this year as previously? Given what he has heard from hon. Members this afternoon, and in the media, is not it time that he admitted that there are serious concerns about the quality of marking? What is he going to do about it?

Edward Balls: As I have said already, the answer is that Ofqual, the independent regulator in these matters, wrote to me on 4 July to say that, in its judgment and according to the information that it had so far, the quality of marking was at least as high as in previous years. The chair of Ofqual said on the radio last week that the organisation was monitoring marking quality closely. If there is evidence of a problem with the quality of marking, Ofqual will act and also advise me, but that is not where we are today, and nor is it the advice that we are receiving. Advice on exam marking, standards and quality should not come from Ministers or the QCA, which sets the tests. It is much better for that advice to come from an independent regulator, and that is why we have introduced the reform.

Peter Bone: The Secretary of State has said that he is accountable. If that is so, why has he not resigned?

Edward Balls: I have already answered that question a number of times. I am accountable for schools policy, including the testing regime, but it is a principle of that regime that national curriculum tests are set and managed at arm's length from Ministers. That is because Ministers should not interfere with how those tests are set and managed, and that is why the contract is managed at arm's length by the QCA, with ETS Europe. A contractual discussion is going on between the QCA and ETS Europe, which together are responsible for delivering the test results. Both organisations have apologised because they have not met the expectations of pupils or the outputs that they specified in their contract. That is where the responsibility lies.

Points of Order

Michael Penning: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, this House and the other House had the honour of welcoming 120 British servicemen returning from Iraq at the north door of the Great Hall. Mr. Speaker was there to greet them, and it was a pleasure and an honour to see them. However, while we were waiting for them, the lunatic fringe that is the peace camp outside broke through the police lines and got into the ranks of those brave servicemen and women. Those people abused and attacked the service personnel, calling them cowards and other things that I will not repeat in this House. Can we investigate how on earth British servicemen and women returning from Iraq and marching through the streets of London to this House came to be attacked, and whether enough police were on duty? Next time we invite them, can we make sure that there are enough police on hand, so that we can welcome them in the proper way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are all aware of the demonstrations that are a permanent feature outside the House, and of how they may sometimes stray beyond the limits. As politicians, we are perhaps more used to such things than other people but, given that the soldiers to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred were here not only to be honoured by us but to be our guests in the Houses of Parliament, I think that what happened was a dreadful situation. I am sure that he will be glad to have his words on the record, and that they will be noted by everyone in the House today and by people outside it. Let us hope that that kind of thing does not happen again.

Julian Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not see the attack on the servicemen, but I heard the persistent attempts to use amplified noise from the square to abuse them. Fortunately, that did not spoil the occasion, at any rate not significantly, but will you ask Mr. Speaker to investigate what has happened in respect of Westminster council? Representatives from the council came for a meeting with Mr. Speaker, the police and me following 50 complaints about broadcast noise from the square disturbing people at work. Westminster council assured us that the licence to broadcast from the square would run out in January of this year, which means that it has run out now, yet there appears to be no enforcement to prevent such broadcasting. The situation is intolerable and absolutely pathetic, and it is about time that the law was enforced in respect of these abusive people.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman raises two matters, and I think that I have dealt with the first already, although I should like to add that I hope that all the soldiers and their families who are here today will be seriously and strongly reassured by the feelings in this Chamber today. As for the second matternoisewe are all well aware of what goes on out there. I shall draw Mr. Speaker's attention to the matter and make sure that he reads the hon. Gentleman's remarks in  Hansard. Let us hope that some action can be taken.

Theft from Shops (Penalties)

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to exclude the offence of theft from retail and commercial premises from the provisions of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 relating to fixed penalty notices; and for connected purposes.
	This Bill has cross-party support and I am most grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for their support. The Bill is necessary because the use of penalty notices for disorder is ineffective in deterring crime, especially shoplifting and other crimes against business. Using PNDs for shoplifting sends out the wrong message, as the shoplifter or thief is treated in the same way as a motorist is treated for outstaying his or her welcome at a parking meter. Tough and effective sentences are needed to fight that type of crime.
	The cost to businesses from shoplifting totals 6 billion each year. In 2007-08, a staggering 290,625 shoplifting incidents were recorded, but only 58,536 offenders were found guilty, and of them only 38,772 were given penalty notices. Therefore, the numbers clearly show that a large number of crimes are being committed by a small number of offenders. Those offenders are ignoring the threat of penalty notices, 40 per cent. of which are not even paid. That is why this Bill is so necessary, as it would delete any reference to theft from the list of offences in the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 that attract a penalty notice.
	It is important to recall that the crime of shoplifting is on the increase. In 1997, there were 274,000 incidents but, as I have said, the latest figures show that there were more than 290,000 in 2007-08. The current law means that penalty notices for theft apply only to retail and commercial theft. Crime against business is often thought to be victimless, but it most certainly is not. The victims are businesses that are employers, and the communities that small businesses sustain. The owners of small businesses face a climate of constant intimidation and violence.
	Crime affects business in a number of ways. It leads to an inability to meet customer deadlines, damages profitability, wastes management's time and affects staff morale, among other things. Some 57 per cent. of businesses are victims of crime every year, and in any 12-month period 45 per cent. of businesses say that crime has cost them up to 5,000; that is big money for a small business.
	Crime against business costs the UK economy an estimated 19 million a year, which is approximately 5,000 for each business, and 12 per cent. of businesses estimate that crime costs them more than 10,000 a year, according to the British Chambers of Commerce. Not only does that have a direct impact on businesses, but the cost is passed on to consumers and individuals in society; it is reflected in the price of goods and in higher insurance premiums. The British Retail Consortium says that the retail sector alone loses 1.5 billion to retail crime annually. If we add the 1.43 billion that is invested in crime prevention, the total cost of crime for a year is 2.1 billion.
	Penalty notices for disorder can normally be given only for thefts up to a value of 100, or for criminal damage to the value of 300. The value of the average annual shoplift, or shop theft, is about 149 according to the Federation of Small Businesses. As that figure is below the cut-off point of 200, the majority of shoplifters are dealt with by PND, but 40 per cent. of PNDs go unpaid, as I have said. The FSB figures show that the cost to businesses of shoplifting is 6 billion a year, 4 billion of which is spent by businesses on crime prevention measures; 2 billion is the value of the shoplifting itself. The Federation of Small Businesses would like the police to re-focus on protecting the whole community, and to recognise that protecting the individual in their place of work is just as important as protecting them in their home.
	The use of penalty notices for disorder for shoplifting is inappropriate. The crime of shoplifting needs to be punished, and the causes of that crime, such as the need to feed a drink or drugs habit or other addiction, need to be addressed. The courts expect the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to follow any guidance issued by the Secretary of State; otherwise, a case will be dismissed. The increasing use and inconsistent application of penalty notices for disorder, particularly for shoplifting, needs to be addressed. The Federation of Small Businesses appreciates that the police find PNDs attractive because they reduce the amount of paperwork, but it is worrying that just over half are paid, and that the fine may not even match the value of the items stolen. If the notices are to be used, there should be proper enforcement. Fines should be followed up, and the notices should not be used in the case of repeat and persistent offenders. Retailers should also be consulted before fines are levied. We encourage the police to consult in that way.
	The British Retail Consortium and its members are concerned about the lack of guidance on the suitability of such notices as a means of disposal. That lack of guidance results in their inconsistent use. The BRC agrees that tough and effective sentences are needed for crimes against business. There should be clarity about when such notices can be used, and consistency of approach is vital. It agrees that penalty notices for disorder are ineffective in deterring crime, and it campaigns for more attention to be paid to the effects of the inconsistencies, as regards shoplifting.
	In connection with my Bill, the director general of the British Retail Consortium, Stephen Robertson, wrote to me to say:
	Our members support the use of Penalty Notices for Disorder...when dealing with first time offenders but we are concerned that penalty notices are often issued in circumstances where they are not appropriate. There is a lack of clear guidance on the suitability of PNDs as a suitable method of disposal, resulting in inconsistencies in their use. It is clear that identities are not being checked and fingerprints, DNA and photographs are not being taken from offenders, preventing effective operation of the PND register.
	He goes on to say that current guidance is insufficient. Given that the British crime survey is a survey of households and does not capture corporate victims, and given that 40 per cent. of businesses do not report such crimes, the indicators are likely to under-represent the true extent of the crime. The law was amended in 2001 to allow penalty notices to be issued for theft, and further offences were added to those for which penalty notices for disorder may be given, and for which fines may be levied. I propose to use my Bill to stop the overuse of penalty notices for disorder, and to amend the guidance that has been issued.
	In conclusion, the current situation is unacceptable. The crime of theft from shops has grown considerably. The current guidelines permit different sentences and inconsistent approaches across the country. We want clear, consistent guidelines. We want to distinguish between first-time and repeat offenders, and between aggravated and non-aggravated offences, but we want the ability to ensure that the strongest possible penalties are given. We want to deal with the issue in a serious way, and we want the Bill adopted, so that we can ensure that such crimes are properly reported and recorded. We want to give the police the tools to do their job, and I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Miss Anne McIntosh, Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. Frank Field, Lady Hermon, Mr. Mike Hancock, Patrick Mercer, Mr. Brian Binley, Bob Russell, Kate Hoey, Kelvin Hopkins and Mr. Shailesh Vara.

Theft from Shops (Penalties)

Miss Anne McIntosh accordingly presented a Bill to exclude the offence of theft from retail and commercial premises from the provisions of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 relating to fixed penalty notices; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 17 October, and to be printed [Bill 144].

Summer Adjournment

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Ms  Diana R.  Johnson.]

Jim Dowd: I am taken aback at being called so early in the debate; like most Members, I am used to sitting here for a few hours before speaking. However, I am pleased and grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me.
	As is traditional on these occasions, I want to mention issues affecting my constituency. I shall mention two matters, both of which I have raised in the past, although events have moved on since then. The first relates to Southern Railway services between London Bridge and my constituency. I have an inner-London constituency south of the river. Overground services are particularly important to my constituents and me, as the north London underground railway, as it is known, has not yet come to our part of south-east London. Fortunately, that will be remedied in a couple of years' time.
	I have previously raised in the House issues arising from the route utilisation strategy for south London, and from the extension of the East London line to Crystal Palace and West Croydon. As part of the changes, Transport for London will take responsibility for the route, and for all stations from New Cross Gate to Crystal Palace and to West Croydon, and will take over the running of Brockley, Honor Oak Park, Forest Hill, Sydenham, Penge West, Anerley and Norwood Junction stations to boot; they will become part of what will be known as the London overground network, although it will be run by TFL and will be part of the tube system. That, of course, is a great boon to my constituents and to right hon. and hon. Friends whose constituencies neighbour mine.
	I raised the issue in the past because there was some doubt about whether the services would be at the expense of, or additional to, existing services. Fortunately, most of the problems have been resolved, and my constituents and others are looking forward eagerly to the considerable expansion of the public transport network in south-east London. It probably will be the greatest improvement since the arrival of the railways many decades ago.
	With change comes difficulty, as everybody knows. New stations are being fitted with the Oyster card system, which has been hugely successful on the underground network and on London buses. Extending it to the national rail network will be to the advantage of passengers throughout the area and the country, wherever it is adopted. Bringing in the Oyster card service means bringing in gates, which is where the current problem exists. There is a plan at Sydenham and Forest Hill stations to introduce over two phases and by the end of this year automatic gates, which will be brought on line while the Southern Trains franchise is still in existence.
	Unfortunately, this is causing many of my constituents considerable inconvenience and has made their lives difficult because of restrictions on the up service from Sydenham and the down service from Forest Hill, requiring people to go to the other side of the station and back over the footbridge to get to the service they want. For people with buggies or luggage or with mobility difficulties, that is extremely inconvenient. Everybody understands why the new system is being brought in, but it cannot be right to inconvenience the law-abiding and ticket-buying majority in the hope of catching the fare-evading minority. My constituents certainly do not see it that way.
	Fortunately, the elected mayor of Lewisham, Sir Steve Bullock, arranged for me and him to meet senior Southern Trains managers at Forest Hill and Sydenham stations last Friday and, more particularly, for the managers to meet a number of constituentstheir customers, passengers, or whatever they are called these daysand to hear from them first hand precisely how difficult their lives have been made by the lack of co-ordination in introducing the programme. As I say, nobody disputes the need to reduce fare evasion and to improve security by ensuring that only genuine passengers have access to both trains and stations. My constituents would agree with that proposition.
	However, as the full scheme can be implemented by the end of this year, we are asking Southern Trainsit has agreed to consider thisto revert to the original position of unguarded gates until such time as it can bring in the whole scheme. My constituents will then be able to have access to both the up and down platforms at all times of the day with minimum inconvenience. I hope and expect Southern Trains to respond positively in a short space of time.
	The other issue concerns health in south-east London. The primary care trusts in Lewisham, Greenwich, Bromley and Bexley put together a review of acute provision within what they called outer south-east London. I grew up in south-east London and have lived there all my life so far. I have never heard of outer south-east London. However, I applaud the PCTs for taking a joint approach to planning important services in the area. The last time I spoke on this issue was at the start of the consultation period. Fortunately, within the last few weeks, that consultation has concluded. The one thing that became apparent beyond all others was that the people of Lewisham do not regard themselves as living in outer south-east London, whatever that might be. If services at Lewisham hospital are taken away, the people would be more likely to go to King's in the west or Guy's and St. Thomas's in the north than they would ever be to go to Queen Elizabeth in Woolwich, Princess Royal in Farnborough or Queen Mary in Sidcup.
	I am delighted that the result of the consultation has been to underline, rather than undermine, the services provided by Lewisham hospital. It is good news for Lewisham residents. The confidence and respect of residents for University hospital in Lewisham has been confirmed by the exercise and by the PCT. The joint PCT accepted that it will continue with the world class maternity and, certainly, paediatric services, which are among the best in the countryas good as Great Ormond street, according to the Healthcare Commission, or better, as Great Ormond street does not provide a children's A  E service but Lewisham does. There are many other arrangementsfor example, the future of maternity services and collaboration with the academic health sciences centre, which is due to be set up shortlywhich will be to the benefit not just of Lewisham hospital as an institution and a centre of technical and medical excellence, but to my constituents and the many others who use its facilities.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should have warned the House that there is an eight-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches. I am sure that everyone was aware of that.

Simon Hughes: I will also keep to eight minutes, as I know that a lot of colleagues want to get in.
	Like the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Jim Dowd), I have the privilege of representing parts of south-east London, and in a second I shall mention some topics of concern in our part of the world. First, however, I shall mention some slightly broader issues.
	We go into recess today with hope and a bit of encouragement that, at last, in Zimbabwe, which we have debated so often in recent weeks, there may be a glimmer of a possibility that things can get better. From these Benches, via the Deputy Leader of the House, may I offer the Foreign Office team our best wishes and encourage them to continue to do all they can, despite the difficult position of the UK, to encourage African Union member states in particular to work strongly and determinedly to bring to an end the illegal and absolutely oppressive Government and to move to a much more positive future in Zimbabwe?
	There are two other places where the next few weeks will be crucial. The Deputy Leader of the House will know that, in a matter of days, talks resume between the President of Cyprus and the Prime Minister and President of the so-called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. This weekend was the 34th anniversary of the Turkish invasion. Many people have seen false dawns in trying to find a resolution, but the election of the new President of Cyprus in February has raised a welcome possibility of new talks and proposals for peace. There are lots of difficult problems, including land, housing, property, disappeared people and so on, but on behalf of the whole House, I wish those initiatives well. It is important that the Government in Ankara understand that, whatever the internal problems of the governing party and the military, they have a huge obligation to seek with their neighbours and on behalf of the whole of Europe to bring Cyprus back to being one nation, with all its communities living together in peace. It is a Commonwealth country and an EU country, and we are a guarantor power. I urge Foreign Office Ministers to be proactive with a greater intensity than ever before.
	The third Commonwealth matter that I shall mention is Sri Lanka, in which I have long taken a interest. I am aware that the Minister for Africa, Asia and the United Nations has just returned from Sri Lanka, and I hope with colleagues from all parties to meet him shortly to go through what he has learned. There are many people working hard under the radar to bring the parties together in Sri Lanka, including the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), who is in his place, and others. There has been conflict in that country for far too long. Violence and terrorism are unacceptable. Unless everybody is brought round the table and engaged in the processSinhala and Tamil, all the faith communities, Buddhist, Muslim and Christian, and othersthere will be no peace on that island. I sense that we have not played a proactive part. India has a huge part to play, as does the United States. I hope that an opportunity can be taken. If the Government in Sri Lanka still think that they can bomb the LTT into submission, they must realise that that is not realistic. As we know from Northern Ireland and elsewhere, unless we engage people, there will not be a solution. I am sure a solution short of separation and two states is possible.

Keith Vaz: We should pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman himself for his work over many years. Does he agree that whatever happens in Sri Lanka should not prevent the British Tamil community from playing their full part in our democracy and from engaging fully with elected Members of this House?

Simon Hughes: Absolutely. A new high commissioner for Sri Lanka has just been appointedI have not met him yetand we must send a clear message that people from all communities in Sri Lanka who have settled here can express their views within the law as freely as other citizens. There must be no intimidation and no sense that the debate here about what is happening in Sri Lanka is being suppressed.
	Next year is the 50th anniversary of the Commonwealth scholarships, but there was a big setback this March, when the Foreign and Commonwealth Office decided to stop funding a proportion of those scholarships. That decision was not met by a positive response around the Commonwealthindeed, the reaction was to the contrary, and real anger persists. The former Member for Bristol, West, Valery Davey, who is now the extremely able chair of the Council for Education in the Commonwealth, and colleagues from all parties are working with others to try to get the Government to think again. I want the Government to think again and to reinstate funding across the Commonwealth, so that postgraduates of excellence can come here and benefit by studying before going on to be friends of this country abroad.
	On the domestic agenda, I have just come from a march from Great Dover street in my constituency to Downing street in memory of David Idowu, who died aged 14 after being stabbed by another teenager five weeks ago. There is a huge gathering of his family, his friends, his neighbours, local schoolchildren, local teenagers, representatives of the Churches and other faith groups, local councillors and so on. The march is about to go over Westminster bridge, and I hope to join it later at Downing street.
	There are ways to deal with knife crime. As we are putting our case in Southwark, my specific plea is for the assets released by the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill to be released early to help existing organisations do more. For example, there is a youth club over the road called The Hub. It is open on some nights of the week, but it would like to open on all the nights of the week. The organisation XLP has a bus that it uses on estates, and it would like to use that bus all day, every day. Downside Fisher youth club, Rockingham estate play association and many other youth organisations would like to do more, which would lead to other people volunteering. Will the Government think again about whether they can fund more detached or outreach youth workers in all our local authorities, to work in the statutory or voluntary sectors? Youth workers could be out in the community as role models and support systems for individuals. If we had 50 of them in Southwark25 men and 25 womenit would be a great advantage.

Sarah Teather: In Brent, we have found that long-term sustainable funding is needed to work with deprived communities, but the constant changes in the different funding streams and changing priorities can make it difficult to build up trust with difficult-to-reach communities.

Simon Hughes: That is absolutely true, and I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House brings my hon. Friend's point to the attention not only of her Cabinet Office colleagues, but of colleagues in other Departments.
	I repeat my oft-heard pleaevery London Member says thisfor the Government to be much more ambitious about their social housing programme. Over the summer, I hope that the Government talk to the new Mayor of London to ensure that he is ambitious about not only one and two-bedroomed properties, but three and four-bedroomed properties, too.
	We have had a great sporting summer so far, although the cricket is a bit risky.  [ Interruption. ] We beat New Zealand and we still have a chance of beating South Africa, although it will take a better performance than in the past two tests. Wimbledon was fantastic, and there was some unbelievable tennis; the British Open was probably the most exciting of recent times; and the motor racing has been wonderful, with two grand prix successes in a row for Hamilton. We have great talent in this country, and there are some wonderful organisations that offer sporting opportunities particularly to youngsters. In Lambeth and Southwark, we have the sport action zone. Will the Government, working with local authorities, ensure that the message about what is available is communicated even better, and continue to support community and other funding initiatives? We are about to watch what will hopefully be a successful Olympics, and I hope that that inspires us to better achievement.
	Finally, I want to discuss a local issue. The right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and I share political responsibility for the Aylesbury estate. Earlier this year, the Minister for Local Government said that the Government would consider ways to support the regeneration of that huge estate, which was an iconic symbol for the previous Prime Minister when he took office in 1997. The council has an ambitious plan to rebuild the estate, to which the community has signed up, but the plan needs Government support and resources. That plan could make a great community for the middle part of Walworth and the middle part of Southwark, but the Government must be bold. Indeed, the Government need to be bold in all the matters that I have mentioned, and I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will be bold in telling her colleagues that.

Mike Hall: I want to raise a number of constituency issues that have implications for the Government and for legislation.
	First, I shall discuss common land in Norley, which is a beautiful village in the middle of my constituency. It has recently come to light that a company has registered the leasehold of the common land. That affects 28 of my constituents, who fear that they will have to pay for access to their own homes. The lease is dated 25 December 1999 and is on land valued at about 40,000 with a 10 rent. The Land Registry registered the lease as a good leasehold, because at the time of registration the company that claimed to own the land was unable to prove that it owned the lordship of the manor of Norley and any land that lay within the lordship. My constituents are concerned that they will have to pay exorbitant prices for access to the land, even though the Government tried to resolve that problem in the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, which gives people who have used land for access for 20 years a prescriptive right of access.
	The Government have four important questions to consider. First, on what basis can a company acquire common land that has been designated as common land for hundreds of years? Secondly, where a company applies to register a leasehold on common land but does not produce the evidence to show that the lessor has the title to that common land, surely the Land Registry should consult local residents who are affected to let them know what is happening and give them the opportunity to get involved in the process, which is nearly 10 years old in this case? Thirdly, where prescriptive rights of access to common land have been acquired, I want the Government to make it absolutely clear that if the property is sold, the rights acquired are transferred with the sale, which would go a long way in allaying my constituents' fears. Finally, where a company attempts to sell the freehold on common land, surely they must be able to prove that they own the freehold to the satisfaction of the Land Registry?
	Let me now discuss the activities of United Utilities in my constituency. It is necessary to write to United Utilities at least three times in order to get an answer to the question one originally asked. This is only a small thing, but United Utilities promised that it would not change the way in which it charges park homes for land drainage; it made that promise three years ago, but this year it has introduced changes that mean that people in park homes in my constituency face an increase of between 85 and 183 per cent. in their charges. I had to write three times to United Utilities to obtain an explanation. It told me that the changes would be revenue neutral. When I pressed it on that point, it said that, based on the 2003-04 figures, it was 25,000 worse off, but it had managed to rebalance the books. When I asked it about the figures for the next three years, it said that it does not have those figures and that it would be too expensive manually to collect them. How on earth can United Utilities say that those changes, which are only small but which affect my constituents, are revenue neutral? That is an important question for the Government to answer, and it relates to my next point.
	United Utilities has also decided to change the way in which it levies water charges on churches. Such charges are now based not on rateable value, but on the actual area covered by the church, including car parks and open spaces. Churches obtain their income from parishioners, and any money that United Utilities takes off them in increased charges for water will come out of the money that they spend on their communities, their churches, their parishioners and their work. I have pressed United Utilities to say whether it will maintain the 90 per cent. charitable discount for churches and places of worship, but it has not answered that question, which I have asked three times. Incidentally, I have also asked the Minister with responsibility for that matter that question, but he has not answered it, either. I need answers to all those questions from United Utilities.
	I am rushing through the points that I want to raise. My next point is about NHS Logistics, which is based in four parts of the country. There is a depot in my constituency. The company supplies consumable goods to the national health service and, in September 2006, against my advice and that of other Members, the Government transferred NHS Logistics into the private sector. It was taken over by DHL and is now called NHS Supply Chain. At the time of the transfer, a written guarantee was given to NHS Logistics staff that they would be subject to Agenda for Change. On 1 April, Agenda for Change introduced unsocial working hours payments for everybody in the NHS except those working at NHS Logisticsor NHS Supply Chain, as it is now called. I wrote to the relevant Minister and asked that the written guarantee remain in force and that the staff at NHS Supply Chain benefit from Agenda for Change. What I got back were a lot of conditions and arguments about why Agenda for Change could not be given all across the NHS. This is an important point. I seek clarification from the Government on whether the guarantee, given in September 2006, stands.
	That guarantee also contained a promise that the trade union recognition and activities available to workers at NHS Logistics in the NHS would transfer to DHL and NHS Supply Chain. Only recently, a union official at DHL-NHS Supply Chain was suspended for trade union activities, and at a disciplinary hearing was given a six-month warning about them. That is not consistent with the terms and conditions guaranteed in writing when NHS Logistics moved to the private sector. It was also promised that a service agreement should be written between the Department of Health and NHS Supply Chain about what trade union activities will go on; another issue is whether the agreement will be written and binding. The master service agreement has been written and I seek confirmation from the Government that that agreement, signed by DHL and the Department of Health, still stands and will be adhered to. I seek clarification on how the Government will scrutinise whether the agreement is kept.
	The penultimate matter that I want to raise relates to the BBC and its trustees. The recently published BBC annual report shows that the BBC should pay tax on taxable benefits given to BBC non-executive directors. The report also confirms that private health care for BBC senior managers is being paid for from the BBC licence fee. We are now told that there is an issue about where BBC trustees livethere is concern that they are too London-centric. I should like the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to consider that matter.
	Finally, I pay tribute to a guy called Harry Pyle, a very old friend of mine. Harry died on 29 June this year, aged 85. He lived an extremely full life. He was a committed socialist and a Quaker. He was a power for good in Frodsham and worked extensively in Africa. He did wonderful work with Oxfam and the Jubilee 2000 campaign. He belonged to CND and campaigned against the war on Iraq. Despite my views on that, Harry was a great supporter. I want to put on record my tribute to him and my thanks to him and his wife, Rose, for the work that they did in our community.

Paul Beresford: I want to use this opportunity to raise an issue that I have raised several times. I seek to persuade Ministers, at the Home Office in particular, to improve the legislation on paedophilesparticularly predatory paedophiles who use encryption.
	Most of us in the House know that paedophiles collect photographs of child abuse. In the old days, they used hard copies, then they used videos. Now they are into digital data, which are kept on computers, CD-ROMs and DVDsany form of digital storage. They source the material by downloading from websites, swapping among themselves on the internet and producing their own photographs. The demand for new material is endless and increasing. There have been a number of changes over the years. Internationally, there is a bigger supply. In this country, there is an increasing demand. Worse than that, the level of depravity also seems to be increasing.
	Many people see paedophiles as individuals who seek young teens, but the reality is that they increasingly look for material depicting the abuse of very young childreninfants, and even babies. Most recently, the material has been able to be encrypted in such a way that the police and even the security forces have been unable to break into it. I have discussed the issue with police experts and the National Technical Assistance Centre, which has the job of breaking encryption for the security forces and the police. I understand from the head of NTAC that an increasing proportion of its work is related to encrypted child abuse data.
	Such data used to be difficult to encrypt, but then came along 128-bit and 256-bit encryption that the individuals could download free from the internet. The process has got progressively more simple, and the new Vista Professional operating system means that, at the moment the individuals turn off their computers, all the material is automatically encrypted. Some individuals go further; they have computers with no hard drives and store the data online, often in other countries, and access is hidden by password or key.
	Part 3 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000RIPA, for shortrelatively recently introduced a penalty for failure to provide, on request, the password or the key. The problem is that the penalty is not working for the simple reason that it involves two years in jail. The data that the individualsmen and womenare hiding would put them in prison for considerably longer than that and they would also end up on the sex offenders register.
	I am requesting a change. I shall give the Minister a brief example. A friend and colleague of mine, Dave Marshall of the Metropolitan police, arrested two individuals who were on the way to France. They had a manual on how they were going to collect and abuse children in France; fortunately, they were picked up first. At one of the individual's homes a computer was found with what was believed to be 150 gigabytes of encrypted photos that could not be accessedif they were single pictures, that translates to 750,000 photographs of abuse.
	The individual involved is a prime suspect in a case involving the abuse of a little girl of three, so the police particularly want to look at his computer. They know that he likes to photograph his activities and are sure that the photos are on the computer. NTAC has had the computer for more than nine months but has failed to break the encryption. The police want the data to convict the individualand others, of course. They want to collect the names and faces of the children, because they want to care for them. We in the House want such individuals put away for a very long time so that they cannot touch children.
	I have raised the issue with Ministers again and again. They are sympathetic, but say that they wish to wait and see how part 3 of RIPA works. It does not work. I cannot understand why we need to wait for more and more paedophiles to escape detection, while little children fail to get the safe care and attention that people expect of our society. There will be yet another Home Office crime Bill; a small amendment in it would rectify the situation and could increase the penalty from two years to at least five, so that our children and babies can be protected.

Ann Cryer: I would like to talk about one subject this afternoon. Airedale general hospital is situated in a very attractive part of my constituency, at Eastburn in the Aire valley. It cares for constituents of Keighley, Pendle, Skipton and Shipley. It has a well used helipad that works with the accident and emergency department, which cares for climbers, potholers and abseilers from the dales, as well as for others with less rural interests.
	This excellent district hospital is the biggest employer in my constituency and is highly regarded by me and my neighbouring colleaguesand, more importantly, by our constituents. However, I wish to draw the House's attention to the long-standing problems caused by lack of investment in the kitchens and canteen. Since 2002, the hospital trust and management have been asked by Bradford's environmental health service to improve the kitchens. At the time, the trust and management explained that funds were not available for that work. Each time the kitchens have been inspected since then, the list of improvements and refurbishments needed has grown. At the moment, they include replacing floor tiles, wall surfaces and ceilings, as well as new, improved methods of air extractionat a total cost, it is claimed, of 1.5 million.
	Last year, I had meetings with management where I stressed the need for the work to be done. By then, however, they had decided that the only solution was to go down the privatisation path. In March this year, the staff were advised that a procurement process was under way to outsource catering. On Thursday of this week, 24 July, the trust will announce its decision. I still hope that catering will be kept in-house and finance will be found for the kitchen refurbishments.
	Good food is a very basic requirement, and it goes without saying that it is especially important for people who are unwell and in hospital. The food at Airedale general hospital has been praised. I note that the hospital trust's in-patient survey for 2007-08 stated:
	Food ratings were well above average with Airedale in the top 20 per cent. of all Trusts72 per cent. of patients rated food as 'very good' or 'good.'
	Letters to the local paper,  Keighley News, and website forums have also congratulated the hospital on its standard of food.
	I have been advised that before making its decision on catering the trust board will, when allocating the contract or otherwise, take into consideration the following criteria: quality, nutrition, safety, contingency planning, guarantees, value for money and staff transfer proposals. However, public opinion, the responsiveness of local provision and the environment are not included. There is considerable evidence that the public support the retention of in-house catering. Last year, a petition was signed by 650 people in two hours. The story has occupied many column inches in the local press. This is a subject that people really care about, and I have asked that the trust take into consideration the views of local people.
	Furthermore, damage is caused to the environment by transporting food over long distances, and freshness is reduced when food is not prepared on site. I believe that the promotion of good food by all public sector bodies, whether schools, care homes or hospitals, is a way of promoting a culture of healthy eating that is clearly needed in this country.
	Finally, I want to talk about the staff, who are the most important factor in all this. There are significant implications for those staff, whose numbers have reduced from 92 last year to 65 now and who are working ever harder in very difficult circumstances. Many of them have contacted me. I believe that the interests of staff are wholly and inextricably linked to the interests of patients. Any threat to their jobs, terms and conditions is not acceptable. Catering work is often relatively low-paid, but the work is vital. The hard work and loyalty of these staff has been core to the success of catering at Airedale general hospital, but I am not convinced that there will be any long-term security for their employment rights.
	As has been seen on numerous occasions following other such privatisations, there is no turning back, and often good things are thrown away. I hope that these few words will encourage Airedale hospital trust to demonstrate its loyalty to these extremely loyal workers by deciding on the in-house option on Thursday.

David Maclean: Before the House rises for the summer recess, I wish to draw to its attention once again the plight of the Cumbrian economymy perennial rant about our situation in Cumbria. That is because we are still the fifth poorest sub-region or county in the whole of Europe. It is not just me saying that; I am not talking down our county, with its superb people and innovators. The Commission for Rural Communities says in its latest report that people living in parts of rural Cumbria are among the country's worst paid and our areas among the most deprived. It highlights a lack of affordable housing, declining services in rural areas and poorer access to services for people without cars. For those who have carsand it is essential to have cars in Cumbriatheir costs are rocketing for the reasons that we know.
	There are things that the Government could do about this. First, they could sort out the Northwest Regional Development Agency and the funding that we are supposed to have through the rural development programme for England, which is funded by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the European Union. We have had a two-year funding gap whereby the money has not come through because the bureaucrats have been wrangling about what we should be doing. Perhaps other areas of the country have also suffered, but Cumbria needs that cash. We do not need political wrangles about how to spend it. We have the innovatorsthe small business men and women and the rural areas who have the good ideasso give them the money.
	Cumbria is also suffering because of the continuing shambles of the Rural Payments Agency, which is again late in paying hundreds of farmers in my constituency. Although it is not as bad as last year or the year before, they will now be clobbered by the clawback of the money that they were wrongly paid. Twenty thousand farmers in this country were wrongly paid. We know that the Government will behave in exactly the same way as they did with child tax credits. Demands will land on the claimant's mat for the money to be repaid immediately, even though it is not their fault. Many farmers will not have spotted that they have been wrongly paid, so the money will not be there to be paid backit will already have been reinvested, to use the Government's term. Some farmers will be put out of business when that money is demanded back. It is high time that DEFRA sorted out the shambles of the RPA. Yes, it can be forgiven for getting it wrong in the first year, when it was setting up probably the most complex payments system in Europe, but it is not acceptable to get it wrong in the second and third years. DEFRA should subcontract the payments agency out to Northern Ireland's Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, which seems to be able to pay its farmers on time, or across the border to Scotland.
	The plight of the Cumbrian economy has not been helped by the continuing post office closure programme. I utterly condemn the senior management of the Post Office for being the Government's little puppy dog in this. When I phoned the senior officer to say, We are campaigning to save post offices in my constituency, the answer was, Well, I'm under instructions to close 2,500 post offices in the country, and if you manage to save one, Mr. Maclean, I'll just have to find another one to close. That was not a threatshe was not being nasty but merely stating a fact. For each post office in our constituencies that we and local people manage to save, another will be closed instead because those are the Government's orders. The consultation has been an utter sham.
	I have recently been inundated, as most colleagues probably have, by correspondence about the cost of fuel from people who have to travel in the course of their work. I have just received some letters from workers from the RPA, who point out that they are on 40p a mileas is everyone in this House, of courseand that their actual motoring costs are now about 52p, 53p or 54p a mile. I have heard from social workers and meals on wheels workers in Cumbria, some on only 39p per mile, who are now, as volunteers, making a huge loss in trying to deliver meals on wheels or social services. That cannot continue. The report on Members' allowances said that the cost of motoring was high and MPs were making a loss, but we did not wish to raise our levels until the Government and the Treasury did it for everyone else in the country. It is vital that throughout the country those essential volunteer drivers, who are driving in the course of their duty, get an increase in their Treasury mileage rates to a lot more than 40p per mile.
	In Cumbria, we are facing the additional costs of vehicle excise duty. An area such as Cumbria has a lot more people with carsthey are not the newer, flashier models but older cars. We have a low-paid rural population who do not have access to busesthey just ain't there. We all use trains when we can. We get into our cars and drive the 30 miles to the nearest train station, and then we use the trains. Those lower-paid workers will generally have older-model cars, and they are in danger of being clobbered because of the Government's changes on VED.
	I appeal to the Government: to help the Cumbrian economy, let us push the button on the nuclear programme and stop messing around. Cumbria is a nuclear county. It has Sellafield, the only centre of excellence in this country for nuclear technology. We want Sellafield to be expanded; we are willing for it to be a depository for nuclear wastenot a dump, but a depository such as those in Sweden or other Scandinavian countries where people can access it and check on the materials. We will do that for a price. We are willing to have a nuclear reactor in Cumbria. We will take that technology, provided we are not afflicted with more ghastly wind farms destroying the beautiful landscape of rural Cumbria.
	At least nuclear energy will contribute to our electricity supply 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and not the 30 per cent. of the time that our miserable wind farms do. Our beautiful county is in danger of being destroyed by wind farm applications at Shap, Berrier, at the foot of Blencathra and now Cumwhinton near Carlisle. They contribute little to our energy needs, butgoodness methey could certainly contribute 24/7 to the ugliness and destruction of our visual environment.
	My penultimate point to the Government is this: please do not muck around with our GP practices and our excellent chemists. We do not need polyclinics in Cumbria. If I had cut my finger in London, I would not dream of trying to search out a local GP. Like everyone else, I would go to St. Thomas's or one of the big hospitals. We know that there is a problem and that London needs health centres and possibly polyclinics. In Cumbria we have had big rural GP practices for years, with six or seven doctors working together in excellent health centres. We do not need polyclinics, and nor do we need the destabilisation of our system of rural chemistssome doctors are now applying to have 100-hour pharmacies, because they believe that their businesses are under threat from the Government's White Paper.
	I conclude on this point: as colleagues pass through my constituency in the Lake district this summer, possibly heading for Scotland, the highlands or elsewhere, they will find one or two tiny little parts of it where, if they stop and look carefully, they will see a red squirrel. But they should look very closely, because we are in danger of losing that species. Our red squirrels are in danger of extinction. I appeal to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to give us funding for traps to control the greyslet us spend the summer saving the reds.

Keith Vaz: Saving the reds is, of course, a sentiment that I echo.
	This debate should be renamed the tour of Britain because it gives all Members the opportunity to visit, via virtual reality, the constituencies of other Members. The red squirrels of Cumbria are very important to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean), and I am sure that the debate will end with the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning) inviting us all to spend our summer holidays in her constituency, seeing all the wonderful flowers that grow there.
	I want to spend the brief time that I have to raise a local, a national and an international issue. I have raised the local issue with the Minister before, and it concerns a site in Leicester that is still owned by General Electric, the second largest company in the world. Those who have been to LeicesterI know that the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara) frequently visits relatives therewill come off the M1 and drive to Rushey Mead and past the old Thorn EMI site. That site is now for sale. For many years, it made about a third of the light bulbs for the whole of Europe, but it has closed, and GE wishes to sell it.
	The land, however, is contaminated, and we have asked the council and Ministers to intervene to ensure that it is not sold for commercial purposes until there is a full and thorough investigation by the local council and the Environment Agency into the reasons for the contamination. It should be put on the market only once the contamination is cleared. Once it has been cleared, the land should be used for housing rather than for commercial purposes or sporting activity. I find it very strange that the Government are trying to force an eco-town on Leicestershire in the western part of my constituency, on what I regard as green belt land. That is a beautiful part of the county, but I can offer them a brownfield site in the middle of Leicester, which will be ideal for house building once it has been cleared of contamination. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will give us some good news about the Government's commitment to dealing with contaminated land and on their desire to ensure that when developers wish to build, they should build within cities, where possible, before moving outside.
	My second point concerns home affairs issues, although I do not want to turn this into a debate on the programme of the Select Committee on Home Affairs because there will be other opportunities for that. I fully endorse what the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said about the march against knife crime that is currently going through Westminster, and I hope to join him and others outside No. 10 at 4 o'clock to show our support for the need to find a solution to that ever-increasing problem. The hon. Gentleman was right to raise those issues, and to raise the issue of peace in Sri Lanka.
	I would like, however, to address the Government's decision to initiate a consultation on alcohol. As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) will know, on Tuesday of last week the Home Affairs Committee completed its lengthy inquiry into policing in the 21st century. Alcohol-related crime is an important aspect of the time spent by the police on solving crimes of violence. In fact, 46 per cent. of crimes in this country are alcohol-related and, based on current figures, 6 per cent. of hospital admissions are alcohol-related. I welcome the fact that the Government have decided to carry out a consultation on the sale and availability of alcohol.
	Cut-price alcohol is offered to those who wish to go to pubs and clubs for so-called happy hours. Our major supermarkets discount alcohol to such an extent that peoplein many cases young peoplewho go to nightclubs on a Friday or Saturday night have already been able to front-load their drinking by drinking cheap alcohol at home. In some cases, alcohol in places such as Asda, Sainsbury's and Tesco is actually cheaper than water. I welcome the consultation, which will last until October. Looking at the alcohol industry and, more importantly, at the effect alcohol has on crime is an important step forward.
	Finally, I would like to raise an international point, which relates to Yemen. I declare an interest: I was born in Yemen, and spent the first nine years of my life there. I try to go back at least once a year with the all-party group on Yemen. Members on both sides of the House have had the opportunity to visit that wonderful country. Unfortunately, the Government have decided to restrict travelling to Yemen on the grounds that the terrorist situation has become much worse. The problem with such advice is that people-to-people contact, which is so important to building up relations, is put at risk.
	I am not a security expert, but I do not think there is a huge problem for tourists visiting Yemen if they take the advice of the Yemeni Government. In other words, they should stick to the big towns and cities of Yemen, such as Sana'a and Adenthe city where I was bornwhere the Government give protection to tourists. The advice is sending the wrong signal given our determination to ensure that the Government of Yemen remain in line with our agenda to combat terrorism in that region of the world.
	We have a proud record of providing aid to Yemen. We set up the donor conference in 2006, where millions of pounds were raised for Yemen by the countries involved. Some of that money has been spent, and other resources remain to be spent. Because we provided the basis for the donor conference, and have now started a consultation on the Yemen development plan, it is important that we are seen to take a lead in helping the Yemeni people, 35 per cent. of whom live in poverty. The level of ill health among young people there is terrible. As we enjoy our summer holidays, whether in Tiverton and Honiton, or the lovely city of Leicesterwhichever pitch right hon. and hon. Members make todayI hope that we remember that there is a world outside. Yemen is not a traditional summer holiday destination for Members of Parliament, but I hope that we will take the necessary steps to protect and support the people of that small and beautiful country.

David Tredinnick: I propose to speak briefly about three subjects: knife crime, tax credit problems and choice in health care.
	Although I am a Leicestershire Member of Parliament, in 1980, I stood for election to the Greater London council in London, not far from the constituency of the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). I well remember driving back on Friday evening and seeing the whole of Brixton in flames, and the roads cordoned off. In subsequent years, I was at Oxford university researching, specifically, policing and public order in a multi-racial Britain. I looked at the Scarman report, and studied the Bristol and Brixton riots in some detail.
	I raise this matter because I fear that the policing strategy and the general attitude to the knife crime wave in London, terrible though it isI believe that 25 young lives have been lost so faris slightly off-message. Members with long memories will recall that the key problem addressed by Scarman was the sus law: the blanket stop-and-search arrangements that had inflamed relations with the ethnic community. As I consider the strategy to deal with the present problem in London, I am concerned about the possibility that we will repeat the problems of the 1980s, when the perceived strong approach of the police involved targeting large numbers of people in the hope of finding a fairly large number carrying knives and did not involve targeting known offenders. I am concerned that such a strategy will blow up in our faces.
	I do not believe that the police can maintain blanket stop-and-search arrangements for a long period. There must be a strategy for targeting the gang leaders. The police have a dutyI think it is in the Public Order Act 1986to provide public tranquillity, and tranquillity is often enhanced by the presence of police. The new half police officers and special constables should be brought into play in that context. However, the situation is worrying: policing by consent is above all essential, and should be the main goal.
	About 10 years ago, when we debated speed cameras in the House, the only basis on which Members accepted the proposal for cameras en masse across the country was the understanding that they would be clearly marked. I remember those debates well. I have noticed in the Metropolitan police districtI tabled some questions about this yesterdaynew bi-directional speed cameras that are marked on only one side. That strikes me as dangerous. There is a general agreement that safety camerasor speed cameras; call them what you likeare a good idea, but there will be problems if they do not command public consent. Moreover, I believe that the police are in breach of the guidelines that clearly state that the cameras should be marked on both sides. I could read them all out.
	My next point concerns tax credit. What a nightmare! I cannot believe the amount of work that my local tax offices devote to dealing with it. It is generally those with the most problems whose problems are compounded by the lunacy of the Government's overpaying them and then saying We want it all back. It is madness. I cannot believe the amount of time and misery that it has generated.
	I referred a case to the ombudsman, whonot because of that one case, but because there are hundreds of such casesproduced Tax credits: Getting it wrong?, a scathing report on the Government. The problems are on almost the same scale as those produced by the Child Support Agency, which have bedevilled members of all parties over the years. The position is truly ghastly, and the least well-off generally suffer most. The tax credit system has put people in debt for the first time. People who have never entertained debt in their lives find themselves in debt, just like the wretched farmersincluding some in my constituencywho are suffering at the hands of the Rural Payments Agency.
	As I have said, Ann Abraham, the ombudsman, launched a scathing attack. How can it be that 1 billion was overpaid last year and a third of tax credit awards were overpaid by more than 1,00025,000 by over 5,000? We must, I think, consider the way in which the Government have tinkered with tax and credit over the years. The current Prime Minister began by abolishing the family credit system, and then introduced working families tax credit, disabled person's tax credit, child care tax credit and employment credit. He then abolished the married couples tax allowance, introduced a children's tax credit, introduced a baby tax credit, abolished the working families tax credit, the disabled person's tax credit, the children's tax credit and the baby tax credit, introduced child tax credit, abolished employment credit and introduced the working tax credit that we now have. Is it any wonder that people are confused after 15 changes over the years, and that the ombudsman has taken an interest? It is a disgraceful record.
	It is no secret among some of my colleagues that I have an interest in integrated health care and have been involved with complementary medicine over the years. I welcome the publication of a long-awaited report by the Department of Health's steering group on the regulation of acupuncture, herbal medicine and traditional Chinese medicine. I am sure that this will interest the Deputy Leader of the House. The report, published on 16 June, recommended that the Government proceed with statutory regulation of acupuncture and herbalists through the Health Professions Council. There is a pressing need for such regulation because we must link our arrangements with European law by 2011, but there is another pressing reason.
	What we have found in the whole field of integrated health care is that once there is statutory regulationthis was true of the Osteopaths Act 1993 and the Chiropractors Act 1994; I served on the Committee stages of bothdoctors are prepared to refer people. One of our problems with integrated health care, including homoeopathy, herbal medicine, acupuncture and aromatherapy, is that doctors do not want to refer people because they are not certain that those to whom they are referring them are properly qualified. If we can ensure that more such therapies are regulated by Acts of Parliament, many more people will be referred, which will be much cheaper for the national health service.
	I hope that my points will be considered. I rest my case.

John Grogan: I want to say a few words about three subjects that are close to my heart. Following the comments of the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) about the great summer of sport that we are currently enjoying, I should like to say a little about cricket, and particularly the broadcasting of cricket. I should also like to say a little about beer, especially in the light of the alcohol strategy that the Government published today. Finally, I should like to say a little about Mongolia.

Simon Hughes: Are the subjects linked?

John Grogan: There could be links, which I shall develop in due course. That sets me a challenge. I did once play in a cricket match in Mongolia, and had a beer afterwards.
	I fear that before the House returns in October the England and Wales Cricket Board, led by Giles Clarke, may well sign a new broadcasting contract for 2010 to 2013. It could be the second such contract allowing cricket, alone among all our major sports, no window on free-to-air television. There will be no live matches, but it is live matches that thrill the blood, so that will be a great disappointment.
	The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey mentioned the test match between England and South Africa. I was lucky enough to be there on Saturday. Perhaps it was not the most exciting day of cricket, but it would have been seen by only about 300,000 people on Sky, compared with the up to 8 million who watched some of the terrestrial coverage. Next summer it will be the Ashes series again, yet cricket is still living off the heroes of the last Ashes seriesnames such as Pietersen and so on are well known. The next Ashes series will be live on free TV in Australia through the night, but not in this country.
	There are two ways of progressing, the first of which is the listed events legislation. It is no accident that the Wimbledon final, which is listed and must be available free to air to all the population at a fair and reasonable price to the broadcasting companies, was enjoyed by 12 million people. Every pub, restaurant and club in the land could put it on, and people who were not at all interested in tennis watched it. I fear that if the cricket authorities do not put some cricket back on terrestrial television, Ministers may be persuaded at last that they have to look at the issue againindeed, we are coming up to a review of listed events.
	The second way in which cricket can return to free-to-air TV is simply through the cricket authorities recognising that although they have to make money out of Sky and other subscription broadcastersSky does a marvellous jobthey can still insist in their contracts that some cricket be on free-to-air TV. Rugby league does that with the Challenge cup, which will be enjoyed on BBC television this weekend. The Football League recently did a broadcasting deal in which it insisted that 10 live matches from 2010 be on free-to-air TV.
	There are ways of having cricket on TV and still retaining a good income for the sport. I hope even at this late stage that the English cricket board and the two gentlemen who are negotiating the contractsI have mentioned Giles Clarke; the second gentleman is a constituent of mine, Clive Leach, who lives in Barkston Ash and is chairman of Durham, and to whom I appeal in particular as a constituentwill think again and see whether at least some cricket, such as part of one of the Twenty20 competitions that were announced last week, could be on free-to-air TV.
	The issue is the subject of great debate in the English cricket board. Giles Clarke won by just one vote among the counties last year. In the first ballot there was a tie, at nine votes each, and his main rival and critic, Mike Soper, took a very different view on free-to-air TV. I appeal to the counties of England represented on the English cricket board to take an interest in the negotiations over the next few weeks and bring some cricket back to free-to-air TV.
	Moving rapidly on to beer and the Government's alcohol strategy, I regret the fact that there was no reference in the alcohol strategy announced this morning to dealing with the below-cost selling of alcoholparticularly beer, but other alcohol, tooin supermarkets, which is a concern across the House. There were some worthy measures mentioned. It is always worth remembering, by the way, that our alcohol consumption per head is falling, although that does not detract from the health dangers facing those who drink too much or the dangers to public order and so on.
	The Government need to revisit the issue of alcohol pricing. They will not get away with dodging it. There are many pressures. For example, the Governments in Scotland and Ireland have said that they will legislate. The official spokesman for Her Majesty's Opposition said that they would deal with below-cost sellingin an undefined way, but that is nevertheless a big step forward. Doctors and senior police chiefs are forming a loose coalition demanding action. Even Tesco has said that it would not object if the Government decided to act.
	It is ridiculous when alcohol is sold for less than the price of water and when 60 cans or bottles are sold in some supermarkets for 20 or less. The Government need to revisit the issue over the recess. The Department of Health is publishing a study on the relationship between alcohol and price. I say gently to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that we cannot find ourselves in a situation next year where there will be one price of beer or wine in Glasgow, Edinburgh or Dumfries, yet over the border in Berwick, York, Manchester or Leedsindeed, throughout the whole of Englandthere will be another. That would not be sustainable. As I have said, Ministers will not be able to dodge the issue.
	Finally, as well as being chair of the all-party beer group, I am chair of the all-party Mongolia group, and I look forward to going there next week. The national hero of Mongolia is Genghis Khan, which makes it even more remarkable that Mongolia has developed a market economy and a democracy over the past 15 or 16 years. Given that its neighbours are China and Russia, that is a tremendous achievement. Tomorrow, the Khural, the Mongolian Parliament, will meet for the first time since the most recent election, when sadly, despite international observers saying that it was free and fair, there were some disturbances and five people were killed.
	I am sure that the whole House will wish the Mongolian Khural, meeting tomorrow, success in the formation of a new Government and in building the democratic future that it took this House 1,000 years to build, but on which countries such as Mongolia have made remarkable progress in less than 20 years.

Robert Walter: I was scratching my head trying to think about any similarities between the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) and Genghis Khan; perhaps they were both beer-drinking cricketers.
	I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. I could speak about a number of constituency issues, but I shall limit myself mainly to two. The other topical issues would include the latest application to build a wind farm in my constituency, which I hope we will see off; today's announcement by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government of her response to the regional spatial strategy, which eats up the green belt in the southern part of my constituency; the crisis in both social and affordable housing; the appalling misery experienced on the A350the main north-south routeby drivers and those who live near the road; and the suffering of dairy farmers, as we are a hot spot for bovine TB, yet we have seen an almost complete lack of response from the Government.
	The two main issues I wish to deal with are economic: one is about the rural economy and the other is about the technological and industrial economy. Although many people may not recognise it, North Dorset does have a technological and industrial economy.
	Last week, the list of post offices to be closed in Dorset was issued and some eight in my constituency are on it, while another three are due to be converted to outreach services.
	The technological issue concerns the aerospace industry and goes wider than just Dorset, as it deals with the relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States.
	Some of the eight sub-post offices in my constituency that are on the list for closure should not be included on it. I hesitate to mount a campaign, but I will be participating in a march from Milton on Stour to Gillingham next Sunday morning, and anyone who wants to join us would be most welcome. I want to mention the post office at Blandford Camp. When the man from the Post Office came to see me, he told me that the post office at Blandford Camp, which is the home of the Royal Corps of Signals, was on the list. I said that that was rather surprising as I had visited it the other day and it seemed to be very busy. He said, Oh yes, but there aren't enough people at retirement age, there are no benefit claimants and no pensioners. I said, Well, yes, it is a military establishment, so it is unlikely that there would be any of those categories of people. None the less, I was told, this was part of the criteria, so we need to find some way of countering that sort of logic, particularly when that post office has an enormous amount of parcels business, for example, which supports our troops serving overseas. I feel that it would be a very sad loss if that post office were closed.
	I mentioned Milton on Stour a few moments ago, and its post office is also due for closure. This is a thriving rural community very close to the town of Gillingham, but not in it. It has a very limited bus service, as do other areas with post offices on the list. There is a bus service, but anyone who uses it cannot get back the same day, which is rather illogical if one wants to go out to do some postal business. I implore the Post Office seriously to consider the logic of closing some of these post offices and I implore my constituents to make a very good case for keeping them open, particularly those in remote rural areas, and to write letters individually. Petitions are great, but they do not always do a lot here; individual letters will be more influential. If we can keep up the campaign, we may stand a chance of saving at least some of these post offices.
	Let me consider the technological and aerospace industries. Flight Refuelling, a traditional company, has been based in Wimborne in the south-east of my constituency for many years. It is now sometimes known by its parent company name of Cobham, after the founder of flight refuelling. It is the world leader in air-to-air refuelling and almost every aircraft in the worldwhether a Boeing, an Airbus or a fighter aircrafthas some bit of refuelling or fuelling equipment that the company has supplied and that has been built in Wimborne.
	Air-to-air refuelling is the key issue in which the company is currently involved. On 27 March, after much deliberation, the Government eventually signed the 27-year contract with the AirTanker consortium to provide 14 new Airbus A330 air-to-air refuelling aircraft, which will be worth a lot of money to the Cobham group in my constituency. They will be fitted out at Hurn airport just outside Bournemouth and we can all be proud of that state-of-the-art equipment. However, just a few weeks before that, the United States air force, which needed to replace its tanker fleet, announced that it would buy aircraft of almost the same configuration. That order dwarfs the RAF's order because the US air force is in the market for 179 air-to-air refuelling tankers. That is worth about $1 billion to the company in my constituency.
	The only problem is that the US Government Accountability Office, under considerable political pressure from Boeing and Congress, has thrown that very good order into touch, and the contract must be readvertised, despite the fact that the US air force says that it is the best aircraft for the job and that it wants the aircraft. I implore the Government to remind the US Government that we are a net buyer of US military equipment and that we should have a fair playing field for the supply of equipment across the Atlantic.

Ian Gibson: The major road between Norwich and London is the A11. Over the years, it has been the butt of many jokes and much comment. For example, it used to be said in the 1960s that, as one entered Norfolk, one would meet the Romans leaving because it took so long to come down the A11. Nowadays, many comments are made about keeping themthose crooks from London who come up the main roadout of Norfolk. It is said that if one dualled the road, they would come back quicker. That argument was vehemently presented for the non-dualling of the road. Comments have even been made about the need for a drawbridge in Wymondham in Norfolk to stop people coming in. I cannot repeat what people in Norfolk say about the Chelsea tractors that arrive every weekend at second homes in Burnham, but those driving them would favour a faster road.
	If one goes to dinner parties, as I do, with movers and shakers, the first comment that they always make about improving Norfolk is, Dual the A11; then they get around to discussing important matters such as creativity, innovation, entrepreneurship and making and doing things. However, the A11 fascinates people and, when I am being mischievous, which happens rarely, I say, Well, dualling is fine, but in California, it would have five lanes by now. However, I dread that thought, with climate change so high on the agenda.
	Other people say that we can always use the trains. Some of us have been fighting the train route from Norwich to London for years. It is unreliable and today's report about Network Rail fits perfectly with our experience of the trains. The train is no substituteit is so unreliable. Dualling the road is therefore important.
	Norwich is a large and vibrant European city, with a route to Yarmouth, which now has an outer harbour. People will want to get from London through Norwich to the outer harbour. We want that fast route to be developed.
	This issue was first talked about as long ago as 1971, in Edward Heath's Government. Progress has always stuttered along since then. The proposals for the Attleborough bypass were made in '89, and in '95 they were put on the long-term programme. In 1999, Lord Larry Whitty, then a Transport Minister, said it was a necessity to get the A11 dualled. In November 2001, the Department for Transportbless itannounced that the A11 was to be made completely into a dual-carriageway. I supported that, and was quite enthusiastic at the timeand I was the butt of many cartoon jokes saying it would never happen. That was the level of argument at the time.
	In fact, however, most of it has been dualled. The distance from London to Norwich is 100-odd miles. The stretch between Roudham heath and Attleborough was dualled in 2003, and the Attleborough bypass was also dualled that year. That venture has led to increased road safety and greater journey time reliability. However, the section between Thetford and Barton Mills/Fiveways is still not dualled, and the pressure is mounting to do that. As this remaining stretch is only 9 miles in length this might seem a trivial issue, but I think that that is an argument for getting the job done sooner rather than later. That would excite peopleas I have said, it certainly does so at dinner parties. It would excite those in business and in the travel industry, because there are many traffic jams along that stretch of the A11 as the lorries pile up as they move out into eastern England.
	There are also environmental debates and difficulties, for instance to do with sites of special scientific interest. There are environmental pressures to bypass Elveden, where Guinness magnate Lord Iveagh has his place. That has been agreed by the Highways Agency, which has bought a piece of land to allow for migrating birds and certain habitats, and thereby to compensate for the upgrade.
	The cost of the upgrade of this 9-mile stretch will be 135 million. It astonishes me that it will be that much, but the experts tell me that that will be the cost. I do not want to compare that with the cost of identity cards and wars, as that would be far too political for end-of-term discussions, but I think I have got my point across. I am sure that 135 million could be quietly absorbed, and that would result in a happier business community in the east of England. The East of England Development Agency has come out in support. It says it would boost the local economy by 600 million and it is vital for the region's economy. It would also generate wider economic benefits for the region and bring firms into Norwich and Thetford.
	Dualling would not only benefit the region's economy, but, as I have mentioned, it would help tackle the congestion between Thetford and Barton Mills. I and many other MPs representing the region, and many residents of the area, think that investment in the scheme would be a building-block in the continued economic success of our region. The East of England regional assemblyin an amazing burst of enthusiasm that astonished merecently gave the green light for the 9-mile stretch on the A11 to be dualled and made it a priority. The Highways Agency is giving support, too. It is beginning to be recognised that that area of the country needs to develop. I do not want to go into all the sad stories about jobs and wages in the area, but that is a real issue.
	Bringing the project forward will be the important battle. The east of England regional planning panel has voted to recommend prioritisation of the A11 upgrade, and the Department for Transport recently said that,
	provided there is no undue delay...a scheme start date of late 2010 is still achievable.
	It does not really recognise how essential it is to bring that programme forward, and to sanction it and make it happen. If we are to open up this vibrant, creative region of the country to the rest of the world, and make it more than just a place where people have their second homes, dealing with the A11 is a priority.

Angela Browning: I am sorry not to be able to follow on from the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on a light note, but today we have formally been given the final list of Devon post offices that have been subject to consultation, and we now know exactly which ones will close. I particularly want to raise the matter today because of my ongoing concern about the impact on village communities, which has been touched on by colleagues. A crude criterion has been applied: whether a post office is more than 3 miles from another one.
	One of the post offices in my constituency that is due to close is located in Tipton St. John, a small village in east Devon. We made a very strong case, saying that although its post office is located within 3 miles of two other village post offices, the geography of the constituency consists of narrow lanes that are very difficult and dangerous for elderly people or people with small children to walk along, but we were given the answer that the Post Office had satisfied itself that people could catch a bus to a town.
	That fundamental criterion might have been overlooked, but, even more worryingly, the village shop aspectsome post offices are also the local village shop, which is a very important facility in rural communitiesdoes not seem to have been taken into account at all. The post office in Tipton St. John is also the village shop. Our difficulty is that despite the fact that I met the Post Office's representatives twice while the consultation was going on, it has still not recognised that any form of outreach service should be provided in place of the closure. That will be very damaging to the local community. In the other six villages where the intention is to close the post office and replace it with some form of outreach service, several of those post offices are also sited in the only village shop for miles.
	I particularly worry about the role of the consumer bodies that are in place to make representations on behalf of consumers. Postwatch wrote to me, putting in a detailed application, to say that it was very concerned about some of the issues that I and many others have raised, However, Postwatch seems to have no teeth, and I think it almost a foregone conclusion that these Post Office consultations are a mockery. The most one can do for one's constituents is try to negotiate the best deal possible on outreach services, because, as we have heard, if one saves one post office, the chances are that the post office in the next village may close in order to meet the requirements.
	Members of Parliament have been placed in a very difficult position, but so too has Postwatch. Given its role in the processit says that it has focused very much on the 3-mile limit between post offices that has been setit seems to me that many of these consumer bodies, which, at one time, would have been championing the rights of consumers and would have been at the forefront of campaigns, have lost all their teeth. I put it to the Government that they have deliberately manipulated many of these representative consumer bodies and watchdogs, which look after things such as postal services and monitoring health service complaints. The Government keep changing these organisations every few years until they have reduced them to being the most ineffective bodies. I intend no disrespect to the people involved in them today.
	The post office closure exercise has shown us that if Members of Parliament, the consumer bodies and large campaignseven though people engage in them in the best hope and faith that they will change mindscannot make these changes happen, this exercise has been on paper only; it has not been a proper consultation. There will be long-term consequences for the viability of rural communities, such as the villages of Kennerleigh, Newton St. Cyres and Plymtree in my constituency.
	The other issue that I wish to raise is that of charity shops. I have several small market towns in my constituency, with populations of between 8,000 and 10,000. Shopkeepers in those towns are increasingly concerned about the number of charity shops. No one is saying that there should not be any charity shops I have opened somebut I have received correspondence, which I have forwarded to the appropriate Minister, from the chamber of trade in Honiton about the balance that needs to be struck when planning applications are made. The question is how many charity shops can a small town accommodate before the regular traders start to feel disadvantaged? I know that there are trading standards rules on what charity shops can sell, but the traders have a point. I ask the Minister to consider the appropriate number of permissions granted for charity shops to trade in small towns before they start to undermine core businesses.
	It would not be the end of term debate, as the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) said, if I did not invite all colleagues to visit my beautiful constituency during the long summer recess. Hon. Members have heard me talk about the beauty of my constituency before. It has two wonderful national parks nearbyDartmoor and Exmoor, and Devon has wonderful beaches both north and south

Jeremy Corbyn: How's the weather?

Angela Browning: I am coming to that. Colleagues who dined in the Members' Dining Room three weeks ago will have experienced the regional menu of Devon produce, including Devon crab cakes and ruby red Devon beef from the Coombe estate in Gittisham in my constituency. So this year, I encourage colleagues to come to the beautiful county of Devon and, especially, to my constituency to take advantage of the wonderful home-produced food. It is not just cream teas: even vegetarians would love the ruby red Devon beef. It is to die for. It is delicious. I hope that everyone has a very happy holiday, and welcome to Devon.

John McDonnell: I cannot match the exotic invitations to Devon, Mongolia or the A11, but I wish to raise a couple of matters of concern to my constituents. I start, inevitably, with Heathrow.
	Last night, Members may have seen the Panorama expos of the Government's decision-making process on the development of Heathrow airport and the information about it obtained by various freedom of information requests. It confirmed that the decision to allow the expansion of Heathrow was made on the basis of information that was doctoredit is the only way to describe itby BAA. That doctoring included the invention of an aeroplane that does not exist yet and is not likely to exist because no manufacturer is willing to create it. That was included in the modelling for the air pollution and noise estimates.
	Allegations were also made in the programme about collusion between Government officials and BAA. It is now time, as I have said in an early-day motion that I have tabled today, for a full public inquiry into the decision-making about Heathrow by this Government. It is clear that the Government must now reject all further expansion at Heathrow, because the undoctored evidence demonstrates that if the Government allow it, they will not be able to meet European directive restrictions on air and noise pollution.
	I hope that hon. Members will find time today and when we return to sign that early-day motion and that the Government will reject further expansion at Heathrow. I hope that at the same time we can have that inquiry into how a Government can make a policy decision that is based on information doctored by a private company.
	The next matter that I want to raise is the BBC resources section. I have constituents who work there, including Mr. Mark Cody, to whom I pay tribute. He has soldiered on, exposing what is happening in that section of the BBC. Some hon. Members will remember that we had a debate earlier in the year in which we drew out some of the information about what is happening with the BBC and its licence. We were then told that the BBC resources section, which includes studio production, post-production and outside broadcasting, was to be sold off. The target was 150 million of income. We now know that 3.4 million has been spent on consultants and advisers to sell off BBC resources, yet only one divisionthe outside broadcasting divisionhas been sold, for 19.3 million. The rest of the negotiations have collapsed.
	All that money has been spent, and the worst thing for my constituentsin particular for Mr. Mark Cody, who has explained this to me and to others through his union, the Broadcasting Entertainment Cinematograph and Theatre Union, is that members of staff have been left virtually in the dark. They have been offered various commitments about protection through TUPEthe Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006if their division is sold off, yet that protection amounts to very little, particularly when it comes to the threat to their pensions, their future wages and their working conditions.
	I urge the BBC to start to consult the union properly, to ensure that there is openness and transparency and to ensure that people like Mark Cody are kept fully informed. At the moment, if he is transferred at some future stage, there will be a pension shortfall and he will lose part of his pension, his conditions of service will be undermined and his employment will be threatened. That problem affects loyal staff in a profitable area of the BBC.
	Events in another section of the BBC will affect my constituents, too. The BBC is not only outsourcing but offshoring. The latest scheme is to offshore the World Servicethe BBC proposes to move major parts of the World Service abroad. The service is directly funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, so there must have been some consultation with the Government. For example, the south Asian broadcasting service in Urdu, Hindi and Nepali will be transferred offshore to India, Pakistan and Nepal. That section represents a third of the World Service's audience, attracted, of course, by a superb and excellent independent service.
	The problem of offshoring the services to those states is that they come within the ambit of local laws. Already, the BBC has been threatened with censorship by the Pakistani authorities as a result of some of the stories that it wanted to produce and broadcast. In addition, staff are being told that they can transfer abroad on lower pay and short-term contracts and to often unstable and unsafe locations, or they can face redundancy. That is a take-it-or-leave-it offer for those staff, many of whom built up the service over the years. It has a standing and credibility across the world that is second to none. None of the issues with the BBC's performance is acceptable. I urge the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to review those matters and to report back to the House.
	The final area of concern that has been raised by my constituents is what has been happening at Shelter, the housing charity. Some Members might know, because they have been written to by Shelter's staff, that Shelter's senior management team has been forcing through changes in staff conditions and contracts against the wishes of the majority of staff, 60 per cent. of whom are unionised and represented by the Transport and General Workers Union, now called Unite the Union. That situation has led to industrial action for the first time in the 41 year history of Shelter. Shelter staff report to me that there is demoralisation and key expert staff are leaving as a result of the imposition by management of cuts in wages and working conditions.
	That must be a concern to us all. Many Members on both sides of the House have worked with Shelter over the years; it has provided us with an excellent service in briefings and other materials, as well as campaigning on issues such as homelessness. At a time when we have a housing crisis, especially in terms of affordability, and when repossessions are rising, to undermine Shelter is to undermine an organisation that provides us and the homeless with a service.
	Interestingly, before the management sought to impose pay and condition cuts on their staff, they gave themselves a significant wage rise. In fact, the chief executive, whom I met, gave himself an 18 per cent. wage rise just before he started sacking his own staff. The staff themselves have had an average pay cut of 2,300. There have been cuts in wages of 800 per annum, and increased hours. We are told that some staff are now having to work three weeks extra for no additional pay, yet the headquarters has been cosmetically refurbished for 750,000, and 500,000 has been spent on consultants to advise the management on how to cut the wages and conditions of the staff.
	I urge the Shelter board to intervene. I have met the chief executive of Shelter, who says that this is actually to do with the way in which contracts are awarded by the Government. If that is the case, I urge the Government to meet the Shelter board to resolve the problem before this essential organisation is undermined. We must not undermine Shelter's status and the services that it provides to Members of this House and to homeless people as a result of its campaigning. It would be a tragedy, in this year when we need the organisation so much, if it were undermined by the way in which its brutal management are dealing with its dedicated staff.

Lorely Burt: I should like to speak for a few minutes on a subject that I know is close to the hearts of many hon. Members. We are all suffering, or have suffered, or will suffer, from post office closures in our constituencies. We in Solihull are luckyif that is the right wordbecause only three post offices are earmarked for closure. However, having lost several important post offices in the cull that we experienced a few years ago, each one that we have left plays a vital role.
	Our story in Solihull is also being played out across the country, and the questions that it raises are pertinent to every Member's constituency. The hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) mentioned the criteria that can be used to try to obtain a reversal of a decision to close a post office. Three criteria of which I am aware are: unforeseen planning proposals that might increase unpredicted footfall; the difficulty of reaching other, more distant, post offices; and the deprivation that would be suffered as a result of the closure.
	By extraordinary coincidence, one of those three criteria pertains to each proposed closure in Solihull. In Haslucks Green road, in Shirley, a superstore and shopping development is planned, despite the fact that we already have six supermarkets in Shirley high street. I have fought bitterly against the Asda superstore, but our failure to prevent this unwanted development has turned out to have a silver lining. Haslucks Green post office is just a few hundred yards away from it, and it will be besieged, not least by people who cannot even get to the superstore because of the traffic congestion that will be created.
	Distance is another criterion that can be used. The Post Office, having encouraged the owner of the post office in Catherine de Barnes to grow his business, is now suggesting that it should be closed. I cannot match some of the ridiculous examples given by other hon. Members about people being unable to get a bus back home from the post office the same day, but Catherine de Barnes is a small village, and the bus to Solihull only comes about every 70 minutes, if we are lucky. The idea of going anywhere other than Solihull by bus is really not feasible. The post office is the only shop in the village, but it has a unique advantage in that it has a combi-counter which offers post office services seven days a week, up to 9 o'clock at night. People come from miles around to use it.
	Deprivation is the third criterion. In Olton Hollow, there is more sheltered housing and, arguably, more elderly people than anywhere else in the borough. Olton Hollow, as the name suggests, is in a hollow, so anyone wanting to reach another post office would have a physical and metaphorical steep hill to climb.
	Citizens Advice carried out an online survey, and it might help the House if I were to quote some of its findings. Citizens Advice feels that six weeks is too short a time for the proper consultation of vulnerable people. More than 90 per cent. of those who completed its online survey said that they would be personally affected if their local post office were to close, while 75 per cent. said that they would be significantly affected. In addition, 75 per cent. of respondents to the survey said that they could get to a local post office on foot, but only 14 per cent. would still be able to do so if the local office closed. For people on benefits, of course, there would be an additional cost if they could no longer reach their office on foot. The survey found that half of the over-65s and nearly half of those on means-tested benefits visited post offices several times a week. Despite what the Government may say, more than 60 per cent. of the over-75s still use the post office to pay many household bills.
	In Solihull, just as elsewhere, other criteria apply that are not being given proper consideration. For example, what happens if the nearest alternative is already too busy, with elderly people waiting in queues for long periods of time? We were not allowed to run a petition inside the post office in Shirley as the shop is owned by the Co-op, so the owners of 35 local shops agreed to take it instead. Many of them said, For goodness sake, please don't let them close the post office at Haslucks Green, because we don't want to have to wait 45 minutes at the one here. They said that even though the post office in Shirley was physically nearer for them.
	What about parking? If it is a nightmare to park near the nearest post office, what will that mean for people forced to use transport to reach their post office? What about the effect of a post office closure on the surrounding local economy? In Olton Hollow, for example, the closure of the post office will affect the footfall in the local parade of shops.
	When I raised these questions with the relevant Minister this morning, he blamed the decrease in post office business on changes in technology such as the internet. Of course, some patterns of business do change, but many services, such as the provision of TV licences, have been withdrawn from post offices. Moreover, different criteria now apply for online payments such as for car tax. Following the withdrawal of Post Office books, there has been the reluctant introduction of the Post Office card account. Although that account is difficult to apply for, it remains phenomenally successful, but the Post Office now faces the indignity of having to tender for its own post office card accounts services.
	When services are withdrawn, and when people find it more difficult to get to their post offices and queues are longer, that means that the Government are making the post office network unsustainable. In the midlands, there are 160 proposed closures, and only four decisions have been reversed. I am concerned that there is some sort of conspiracy. Our communities are putting themselves through the pain of fighting to save their precious post offices, but it seems to be a done deal already. I have tabled an early-day motion stating that the word consultation must mean just that, and that the result must not be a foregone conclusion.

Shona McIsaac: I always love taking part in these debates, as they are one of the few opportunities that Back Benchers have to raise their constituents' concerns. In the last such debate that I took part in, I raised the matter of free travel for pensioners in my constituency. One of my local councils was restricting free travel for pensioners, but I am pleased to report to the House that pensioners in my constituency had their free travel restored on 2 June. That shows how powerful these debates are.
	I also raised some fears and worries about the closure of Waltham fire station and the loss of a pump at Immingham fire station. I appealed for more time, as any closures that were to happen would have been announced in the middle of the recess. The announcement was put off butsadlywe shall find out about the future of those fire stations on Friday. I want the fire authority to think again about the impact of the fire station closures on our communities.
	One reason why I make that point is that last ChristmasI do not know whether hon. Members recall thisthere was an explosion at Fred's Taxis in Immingham. Sadly, two women who worked there, Ann Mawer and Sue Barker, lost their lives. The inquest was held this week, and it recorded verdicts of accidental death as a result of the explosion, which was caused by the storage of petrol on the premises. We do not yet know what caused the petrol to ignite. I have been working with Ann's sisters to ensure that the law is better enforced, or indeed changed so that there are stricter controls on how much petrol can be stored on domestic premises and very small commercial premises of the type used by most taxi firms. We could lose a fire appliance at Immingham, where the accident took place. In light of those two tragic deaths, I am sure that Humberside fire and rescue authority will understand why people are so concerned.
	Last year, Immingham was subject to flooding, and some constituents were out of their homes for more than a year. A lot of that had to do with loss adjustors and insurance firms delaying giving people the money and the go-ahead for building works. Again, the fire and rescue service was crucial in assisting many of the people who were affected by the floods, so I call on the fire and rescue authority to think again. I hope that that campaign will meet with success.
	I praise the Government for announcing that there will be a water and flood management Bill. I have received a wealth of information from constituents who were affected by the floods last June, and I will forward it to Ministers so that they can see some of the suggestions that my constituents have made. Last year, there was a focus on places such as Hull, but a lot of the floods in my area were in the more rural parts of the constituency. We have to address those concerns, particularly with internal drainage boards.
	I have already raised in the House the issue of the A180, and the need to get that damned noisy road resurfaced. One section has been resurfaced, and it has been announced that another section will be resurfaced. However, there is a catch: only half of itthe westbound, but not the eastbound, carriagewaywill be resurfaced. Who at the Highways Agency came up with the idea of resurfacing just one side of the dual carriageway to reduce the noise? If the equipment is on site, let us do all the work. I will not stop campaigning until every section of concrete on that road is finally stripped off, and until the road is re-tarmacked.
	Also on the subject of roads, I am sorry to say that in Barton-upon-Humber yesterday there was a fatal accident in which a pensioner was knocked down and killed on the crossing in the marketplace. I send my condolences to her family. Town residents have long complained about the safety aspects of the crossing. There is a lot of industry in the Humber area, and there are many heavy goods vehicles. They continue to go through small towns, market towns and villages in the area, although there is a perfectly good dual carriageway, albeit a noisy one with a concrete surface. They choose to go through the villages. Some people have told me that that is because their satnavs sometimes direct them by the shortest route, rather than by the main roads. I want something done about the number of HGVs that use towns such as Barton-upon-Humberpeople say that the situation there was an accident waiting to happenand Immingham, which I mentioned earlier. HGVs continue to thunder through the centre of that town, past schools and shops. We need to address that issue.
	Another transport issue that I should like to bring to the House's attention is that of free school transport. There has been a bit of a fuss in my local area recently, as North Lincolnshire council intended to withdraw some of its free school transport, and to start means-testing those who used it. I am pleased to say that the council has changed its mind following a revolt by parents worried about the safety of their children if the free transport were not applied. North East Lincolnshire, the same council that withdrew free travel for pensioners last year, is also going to go down the road of means-testing children's transport to school. Clearly the council has seen the fuss caused in the neighbouring authority and I hope that North East Lincolnshire council, as it did with bus passes, changes its mind about removing something that is free and starting to charge for it.
	Last week it was announced that North East Lincolnshire council was to receive more than 3 million from the Government to refurbish kitchens in schools. Several years ago, many of the kitchens in primary schools were removed. I am pleased that the campaign has paid off and that money will be invested in school kitchens.
	While I am on my feet, like the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning), I will extol the virtues of British seaside resorts. If people wish to come to Cleethorpes, we are more than happy to welcome them to our wonderful sandy beach with probably the shortest pier in the world and definitely the very best fish and chips in the world. I wish all hon. Members a good, relaxing and peaceful recess.

Dai Davies: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on behalf of my constituents on a number of issues and I shall try to use as little time as possible.
	First, I pay tribute to one of my predecessors in representing Blaenau Gwent, Aneurin Bevan. In this, the 60th anniversary of the health service, it is a great pleasure to represent the area and to be linked alongside such a great man. I pay tribute to Tredegar Medical Aid, one of the organisations that influenced Bevan in pushing forward the national health service, and to the people of the south Wales valleys, who showed that co-operation coming together with funds could benefit more than just the individual.
	The NHS principle of treatment free at the point of need is as important now as it was 60 years ago. Bevan would be proud that the NHS is still in existence, but I believe that he would be disappointed in the fact that ill health remains and that the divide between rich and poor is as wide now as it was then. Health inequality between industrial heartlands such as my constituency and the wealthier areas of the country is nothing to be proud of. The differences between those areas are far too great.
	Bevan said that the NHS should be for the rich and the poor, who should be treated alike, and that poverty should not be a disability and wealth not an advantage, but the statistics show that where we live is as important in assessing our life expectancy now as it was after the second world war. Life expectancy for those in the well-off areas is some 10 years more than in the poor areas. Infant mortality rates are much higher in the poorer areas. A lot of that has to do with poor housing and education, in which we need to invest. Those areas in poverty are remaining in poverty and we have done very little to lift them out of it. Infant mortality rates show a health inequality gap: one in five children in poverty, but one in 20 in the more affluent areas.
	Bevan said that the reason to gain power was to give it away, but we should not give it away to management consultants within the health service. We should give it to the people who need to make the decisionsthe doctors, nurses, cleaners, cooks and patients. Bevan's co-operative commonwealth for health is as relevant today as it ever was.
	I wish to refer to two other issues, the first of which is the Post Office, as raised by many Members. I want to concentrate particularly on the Post Office card account. The average card lobby that I receive on any particular issue is a dozen, perhaps 20 cards. I have brought a sample of the 500 I have received about the card account, and I guess that the number will be higher in the bigger constituencies. That shows what the general public think about supporting our post offices. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government recently launched Communities in Control. She spoke at length at the Dispatch Box about petitions, but there is no point in encouraging individuals to take part in petitions and the political debate if the Government ignore the outcome. Petitions show the need for the Post Office card account to remain with the Post Office. The Government want to spend taxpayers' money to the best of their ability, but surely the card account protest shows that taxpayers want their money spent on retaining the card account where it belongs. The Government must listen to that referendum.
	Finally, youth inactivity and youth crime have been mentioned by a number of hon. Members. When I was a young man, which was a long time ago, youth crime and crime in general took place in the big city. Now, even gun crime and knife crime have shifted across the country, and they have probably touched all constituencies. If one were to sit down in a room with elected representatives, the police, teachers and people in the community who work in such areas, problem families who are always in trouble could be identified. The process begins with a mum and dad who are perhaps disfranchised for whatever reason. When that mum and dad have two or three children, the problem gets that much bigger. We need to deal with such problems at the core, because it is no good being reactivewe must be proactive. Some of those families need 24-hour support and the help and encouragement of others to put their lives right. Changing a social worker without allowing representation, which breaks continuity, is unacceptable. We cannot play with youth worker involvement, which should be there as a matter of course. Education has a huge role to play.
	Wonderful community groups work in my constituency, and they put on shows for young people. However, they have to raise some 10,000 for a week's show, which is a lot of money for a small group to raise. All we seem to see is community centres closing for lack of funding, which is not continuity and which disrupts the community. Short-term project funding instead of long-term solutions is not the way forward. The community knows what it needs, and we must consult the community at large to find out what it wants.
	I thank you for this opportunity to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I wish everyone, including House staff, a restful summer recess.

Mark Lancaster: The expansion of Milton Keynes remains one of my constituents' main concerns. I will begin with a partial review of the South East Plan, which was published recently. Although we have known for some time that Milton Keynes is expected to absorb some 50,000 dwellings by 2026, it has come as a shock to discover that we are now expected to provide some 5,600 dwellings to the east of the M1.
	For those hon. Members who do not know my constituency, the M1 forms the boundary of the city of Milton Keynes. Rural north Buckinghamshire lies to the east of the M1, and I fear that housing to the east of the M1 will be the thin end of the wedge. Interestingly, the Government always claim that they are keen to consult the local population, but when they did soalbeit brieflylast year, of the six options that were put forward, the one option that included housing to the east of the M1 was the least preferred among local residents. Yet again, the consultation was a sham, and the Government have decided not to follow the wishes of local people.
	A connected issue, which I have raised in this House on many occasions, is my campaign for i before e, or infrastructure before expansion. If Milton Keynes is to expand, it is vital that the infrastructure is in place. In recent weeks, I have raised my concern in the House that we are some 24 million short of our basic needs allocation for schools. Furthermore, the Government have told us that all our problems will be answered by the innovative Milton Keynes tariff, a system whereby 18,500 will be given towards the Milton Keynes infrastructure for every new house that is built. However, such schemes rely almost entirely on a strong housing industry. During this economic downturn, fewer houses are selling in Milton Keynes, so we are not getting the income from the tariff. In turn, it appears that many of the schemes that we hope to deliver in the next two yearssuch as the new multi-storey car parks in the city centrewill have to be delayed. The Government put all their eggs in one basket when it came to the delivery of the Milton Keynes infrastructure. Will the Minister consider again how we are to deliver that infrastructure, which is much needed?
	Connected to that issue is the future of the grid roads in the city. Those who have come to Milton Keynes will be aware that it is one of the few cities in the country that can be crossed in 10 minutes. That is because of our marvellous grid road system. Yes, it is very much designed for the carthat may not be particularly green in the modern agebut it is effective. Yet it appears that the new east and west expansion areas will not have the grid roads and that there will be some sort of hybrid systema worse for all system.
	Today, the Leader of the House said that she wanted an e-petition system for Parliament similar to the one for No. 10 Downing street. I tell the Deputy Leader of the House that some of my constituents petitioned No. 10 about saving the grid road system, and were concerned that the reply was so ill informed as to state that Milton Keynes council was the planning authority for the east and west expansion areas. As the hon. Lady may be aware, it is not Milton Keynes council, but Milton Keynes Partnershipthe unelected, unaccountable quangothat is the planning authority. Given the lack of research evident in the replies to the petitions to No. 10, what hope is there for the system when it is extended to Parliament?
	I want to raise three brief issues about trains. As a result of the severe overruns on Network Rail engineering works in early July, the Office of Rail Regulation agreed a set of 25 milestones for Network Rail so that progress towards the December delivery could be monitored. That, of course, will affect hon. Members, many of whose constituencies are on the west coast main line. Each of the milestones is vital if we are to meet the December timetable, so if one goes, the whole project will disappear. Yet there will be only two reports on the milestones in the next two months. I would be grateful if the Minister came back to me to explain why there cannot be a monthly progress report to ensure that the services are met.
	I turn to capacity. Milton Keynes continues to expand. Unfortunately, we have had to give up the battle of trying to get the Virgin trains that stop in Milton Keynes to allow passengers on. At the moment, they can only get off during peak hours, despite empty carriages. That seems ludicrous. I understand the arguments that in future there will be greater capacity for more northern towns, but why can we not allow passengers on the trains at the moment, as Milton Keynes continues to expand?
	We are also concerned that for every one of its two high-speed links to the City, London Midland, which provides the commuter service, could be holding up slots for seven Virgin Pendolino trains. As pressure increases in years to come, the slots may well be lost. I seek assurances from the Government that Milton Keynes will continue to get its fair share of slots for commuter trains.
	I also want to raise the issue of compensation from train operating companies. In the past, automatic compensation was paidin cash, directly to affected passengers and season ticket holderswhen major disruptions occurred. Such incidents were classified as void days. Today there is no such classification; it is left to the individual to claim from the train operating company. It is up to the individual to prove their inconvenience by having to keep detailed records of their potential journey. That is inconvenient to the point of being unworkable, as few passengers have the time or resources to record in detail every problem that they encounter. Under a supposedly simplified system recently announced by the Government, there is no provision for strike-day compensation for season ticket holders. What the individual train operating companies do is up to them and even if alternative transport arrangements are provided, they are often inconvenient and the passenger suffers extra journey time and financial hardship.
	Although there is no legal requirement, the train operating company can, at its discretion, pay compensation, although of course it invariably chooses not to. Many of my constituents feel that that is unacceptable. Even if compensation is paid, it is now done in vouchers, not cash. Although those vouchers can be used against season ticket renewal at a future date, if the person does not use the train for other journeys, it is months before they can use the vouchers. My constituents are clear about what they would like to be done: for lost days, a return to the old system of automatic cash compensation; for strike days, an automatic refund, the same as for lost days; and for the payment to be in cash, not vouchers.

Robert Goodwill: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mark Lancaster: I am afraid that I have no timeI am sorry.
	In the final few moments that I have, I want to raise the issue of the British grand prix moving from Silverstone to Donington park. Although Silverstone is not in my constituency, much motor racing activity is, and it would have a severe impact on my constituency should it moveon the hotel business, for example, because many people going to Silverstone stay in hotels in my area. Although I realise that this is not a matter directly for the Government, the Minister concerned has recently had meetings with Bernie Ecclestone. All I ask is that we perhaps move to a system whereby the British grand prix can alternate between Silverstone and Donington park.

Anne Milton: I echo many of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Milton Keynes (Mr. Lancaster). The South East Plan was published last week amid an unnecessary degree of secrecy. I phoned the office of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on several occasions last week and was told by her staff that they did not know when it would be published. In fact, they clearly did know because there was a ministerial statement on Thursday. I cannot see why it was felt necessary to keep it secret. That does not inspire confidence in my constituents, who will now be involved in the public consultation that will continue until 24 October.
	The changes to the draft visions of the regional spatial strategy will see an increase in the original housing numbers of 31 per cent. for Guildford and 9 per cent. for Waverley, and of note to my constituents will be a 25 per cent. increase in Woking. That will clearly lead to the green belt around Guildford being destroyed. The plan says:
	In order to meet regional development needs in the most sustainable locations, selective reviews of Green Belt boundaries are required in the following locations:
	In the Metropolitan Green Belt to the north east of Guildford and possibly to the south of Woking.
	I draw attention to the report commissioned by the GovernmentI will be interested in the Minister's commentsfrom experts Roger Tym and Partners, who warn of the effects of imposing unsustainable building targets on the south-east. They say that the building plans will
	have a negative effect in all sub-regions on the objective to reduce the risk of flooding...A number of trunk roads are likely to be unable to cope with the predicted traffic demand...There is some over-loading on most routes into London and all sub-regions adjoining London would therefore likely be under stress under the higher growth forecasts...Increasing the provision of housing under all our scenarios will result in a regional deficit in water supply, with many areas in severe deficit of water resources.
	Last July, the Prime Minister said:
	I assure the House that we will continue robustly to protect the land designated as green belt.[ Official Report, 11 July 2007; Vol. 462, c. 1450.]
	In a No. 10 lobby briefing on 10 July, he said:
	Green belt land will stay as green belt land. Yes we can give you an assurance that we will not build on the green belt land. We are not proposing any changes to our very robust protection of the green belt.
	Yet the green belt is specifically mentioned in the South East Plan and my constituents will see the potential for its being built over. Can the Minister explain how those statements square with the proposals in the plan?
	I pay tribute to East Guildford Residents Association, and particularly to the chairman, Dr. Graham Hibbert, who has long worked to improve the local environment in Guildford. EGRA, as it is known, includes Abbotswood, Burpham, Chantry View road, the Cranley road area, Downsedge, Holy Trinity, Merrow, Shalford and Tyting farm. More than 2,500 people are represented through that organisation. EGRA says:
	The plan is bad news for Guildford...Guildford will undergo major expansion which will irrevocably damage its heritage and compromise its future. The scale of growth proposed is not primarily targeted at helping current Guildford residents who want to buy and live here. We seriously doubt that, as a gap town in the Surrey Hills, Guildford can be an economic and housing hub.
	I would also like to pay tribute to the Guildford Society. Many market towns have similar societies, and they do a huge amount in their own time, spending hours going through planning proposals. As it points out, Guildford
	is in a gap in the Downs and is surrounded by Green Belt on all sides and by Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The town lies within the 5 km buffer zone of the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area. Significant areas lie in the River Wey flood zone. The constricted roads are already at capacity...If we expand on the scale proposed Guildford will grind to a halt.
	All those associations, and all my residents, are extremely concerned about these proposals, and it is not at all clear how, when or if the Government will deliver the infrastructure improvements necessary.
	While we are on the subject of infrastructure, I would like to say a little about Guildford, its funding and our roads. We are a significant contributor to the Treasury coffers. Local residents pay a heavy price for economic success in terms of congestion and traffic, but that is not recognised in our funding settlements. As one county councillor said to me, we have double the amount of car usage and half the amount of money. Indeed, the Government's settlements show that in 2008-09, Surrey received a minimal increase in Government grant of 2 per cent.
	Total Government funding equates to just 18 per cent. of the annual budget. The remaining 82 per cent. has to be funded through council tax. Government funding represents approximately 205 per head for Surrey residents, compared with an England average of 595, and 856 in Manchester, but we are one of the few areas that contributes to the Treasury.
	Turning to police funding, only 42 per cent. of Surrey police's budget is funded by the Government, but Northumbria and Greater Manchester only have to find somewhere in the region of 10 to 15 per cent. We pay a heavy price. The Government want us to take more houses, but they are not prepared to give us the money to ensure that Guildford keeps moving or to ensure that local business remains a success.
	As time is so short, I would like to finish by mentioning Cranleigh and Milford hospitals. Local residents have fought for a long time to keep Milford hospital open; my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) played a significant part in that. On Cranleigh village hospital, the decision made two years ago by the former Guildford and Waverley primary care trust to proceed with the so-called option 1 has finally been shelved as a result of a damning independent panel report. The decision made by the former Guildford and Waverley PCT was taken up and run with by Surrey PCT, and if the Deputy Leader of the House has some time in the recess and wants a little holiday reading, I can recommend the report of the independent panel. It is outstanding. I am now at a loss to know how to reassure my local residents that Surrey PCT can fulfil its obligations and duties. The report contains comments such as:
	'no apparent links to social care'; 'Workforce plans are not developed'; 'no evidence of how the proposals will increase the availability of day care surgery'; 'Not possible to assess whether more OPD services will be available'.
	The report goes on and on.
	I know that the trustees of Cranleigh village hospital, Cranleigh parish council, the League of Friends in Cranleigh and the GPs in Cranleigh have a superb plan that will deliver all the Government's objectives for providing care close to where people live. I urge the Deputy Leader of the House to apply any pressure she can to ensure the successful delivery of that project.

Richard Taylor: The best invitation I can offer to the House is to my party conferencethe conference of independent health concern. It will take place in my garden, after a very good buffet lunch, on 7 September. We will be discussing my own manifesto for the national health service. I shall share it with the House for a few minutes now, because I am sure that there are a lot of votes in it for all parties.
	My manifesto for the NHS contains seven points, and a lot of them support and add to Lord Darzi's review. The first, which does not appear in the review but which I consider incredibly important, is the abolition of prescription charges. We know that they are unfair, and that an inquiry is being carried out at this moment. The Secretary of State for Health told us today that the result would be produced shortly, but he then said that it was some months away. The process has been going on for months and months, which just shows how difficult it is to make any sense out of prescription charges if they remain.
	We are told, in an attempt to reassure us, that only 13 per cent. of people pay the charges. However, they include people with long-term conditionsfor instance, young people with cystic fibrosiswho a few years ago would not have survived. One young lady told the Select Committee on Health that she was taking 85 tablets a day. Those with long-term conditions such as Parkinson's are not exempt, yet those who are lucky enough to have thyroid disease, which is easily put straight, are exempt from charges for every medicine that they might need in the future. The people most affected are working adults whose incomes are just above the income support level.
	We are told by the Government that abolishing prescription charges would cost 450 million a year. That is a fraction of the national health service budget, and about a quarter of last year's NHS surplus. However, even if the Government desperately want to find another source of funding, I think that this is one of the occasions on which a tiny hypothecated tax on the super-rich would be borne by everyone concerned.
	The second point in my seven-point manifesto is, of course, quality. I have four Cs. The first is care, which includes safety, avoiding errors and using the best treatment protocols. The second is compassion, which includes dignity and kindness. The third is communication: communication between clinical staff and patients and their relatives at home and in hospital, and communication between hospitals and GPs and between GPs and hospitals. An article in this week's  British Medical Journal asked:
	Can we call this failure of information transfer care at all? Isn't the truth that this institutional behaviour of non-communication is just carelessness and neglect?
	According to Lord Darzi,
	High-quality care is care where patients are in control, have effective access to treatment, are safe and where illnesses are not just treated, but prevented.
	Darzi recognises both the difficulty and the importance of measuring quality, but it must be measured. Until we have a better way of measuring it, surely complaints about quality, particularly those that come to Members of Parliament, should be passed on.
	The third of my seven points is competition. Obligatory reading for everyone involved in it is an article in the  Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine by Richard Smith, a recent editor of the  BMJ. He has reluctantly come to see that competition may be essential. As I have supported the NHS so intensely throughout my life, it goes against the grain for me to realise that it is like a great big juggernaut or tanker which cannot easily be turned around. Perhaps we must appreciate that there is something in competition, but if we do, we must bear in mind some of the criticisms of the experience in the United Statesworded very wellthat appeared in the  BMJ at the end of last year. The authors observed:
	Extensive research shows that its for-profit health institutions provide inferior care at inflated prices... commercialisation drives up costs by diverting money to profits and fuelling growth in management and financial bureaucracy.
	The  New England Journal of Medicine said in January this year:
	The extreme failure of the United States to contain medical costs results primarily from our unique, pervasive commercialization.
	If there is to be competition in the NHS, it must be regulated. That means a fair and level playing field, open to NHS providers as well as non-NHS consortiums. An example of unfairness is where out-of-hours care is put to tender, but where there is no definition of how the service is to be provided, so that the non-NHS providers can come in with a reduced skill mix and thus offer it more cheaply.
	Fourthly, all providershospitals, GP conglomerates and mental health providersshould be able to go for foundation trust status, because it means that they can engage with Members, keep their surpluses and, by so doing, have money for quality awards.
	Fifthly, we should accelerate the work of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, as recommended by Darzi. That would be part of the answer to co-payments.
	Sixthly, patient and public involvement in commissioning is crucial. We have to strengthen local involvement networks and overview and scrutiny committees.
	My final point is about health care rationingwe are scarcely allowed to use the term; we have to use prioritisation insteadwhich is essential. I quote again from  The Journal of The Royal Society of Medicine:
	The final recurring theme, present throughout the last 60 years and no doubt into the next 60, is the thorny question of rationing health care...The future of rationing health care will provide a key battleground for the NHS.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, may I say to the House that if everyone now takes their full eight minutes, we will probably not get everybody in, but that if they reduce it a little, we might? Perhaps hon. Members will bear that in mind.

Michael Moore: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will seek to honour what you have just said.
	As the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) said, we have had a tour of Britain. We have heard a lot about the different experiences in England and Wales, and I should now like to draw Scotland into that picture, too. There is a theme linking many of this afternoon's speeches, which is essentially that the Government are failing in particular areas. That is generally the case in rural Britain and, as I see it, particularly so in my constituency. Some key decisions will be made over the summer by the Government and the agencies acting on their behalf. Currently, I fear that they will make the wrong kinds of decisions.
	One issue is that the Government are failing to understand the realities of rural Britain and the extra pressures of the increases in the cost of living, particularly in fuel and, as was mentioned earlier, the changes to vehicle excise duty. Local businesses in my constituency, whether in the fishing communities or the textile industry in Hawick or elsewhere, are struggling with the extra costs that have been imposed on them in the past few months.
	Like many others who have spoken, I face the prospect of post office closures in my constituency being announced in a few weeks. There are 3,500 pensioners who go to post offices each week to get their pensions and 3,500 other people who collect their benefits there. They depend on a network of post offices spread across the vast, beautiful constituency that I represent. I rather fear that, as others have said, the criteria are not designed to ensure that we get a sustainable network that services the local community in the way required. Thousands of my constituents have signed postcards, and thousands have also signed the sub-postmasters' campaign on the Post Office card account. I hope that the Government will hear what has been said throughout the country about that.
	A related matter is puzzling for many of my constituents and must be dealt withthe issue of the Royal Mail and its address database. A number of communities in Berwickshirefor example, the villages of Foulden, Hutton, Paxton, Lamberton and Mordingtonhave a Berwick-upon-Tweed postcode. I have no wish to cast aspersions on the good people of Berwick-upon-Tweed, but my constituents are very firmly in Scotland, even though they have an English postal address. It can be plain irritating for the people concerned, but it can also have serious consequences for official documentation about which country they live in, for example. It can affect insurance premiums in areas where small villages are linked to nearby towns and it can also affect deliveries to those areas. A community such as Fountainhall, a full 15 miles from Galashiels, has a Galashiels postal address, which can cause utter confusion, particularly when people try to buy or sell a house. The Royal Mail has frankly refused to accept that it has any responsibilities in this matter. It has refused to accept that the commercial database that it sells has consequences for people such as my constituents, who are the consumers in this case. I hope that the Government will look further into this issue and force the Royal Mail to rethink.
	This summer, pay phones are to be closed across my constituency. Very little account has been taken so far of the poor mobile phone coverage in the area or of the fact that pay phones are often the emergency lifeline for these communities, so I hope that we will see a rethink of plans to close the 46 such phones selected for closure, which represent 27 per cent. of the unprofitable boxes in my constituencya higher proportion than in just about any other part of Scotland.
	Soon after we return from the recess, one of the biggest changes affecting the country as a whole will start in earnest in my constituency when we switch over to digital television. I have raised many issues about this matter in the past, but I want to refocus the Government's minds on Freeview Lite and the fact that anyone served by a relay transmitter will get a second-class service with far fewer channels, whether it be on the TV or the radio. With my area having 11 relay stations, almost half my constituents, through no fault of their own, will get that second-class service. If we combine that with doubts about the future of ITV regional news and concerns about the allocation of the digital dividend from the switchover process, we see that very serious problems surround the entire digital switchover process, and the Government need to address themurgently.
	One issue causing great anxiety and anger among farmers in my constituency is the proposal to introduce electronic identification tags for sheep, which is going to be compulsory by the end of 2009. We all understand why biosecurity and disease control are uppermost in our minds and we understand the need to follow through the food chain and ensure proper traceability, but one size cannot fit all. With the farming community comprising many different farms with more than 1,000 ewes across the beautiful hills of my constituency, it is simply not practical to implement those proposals. We need a risk-based approach that will be affordable, proportionate and cost-effective for all concerned. A batch recording system would offer us such a scheme, and I am appalled that so far nobody has been able to take it up and accept it. I hope that the Minister will support a feasibility study and a Scottish trial to ensure that we see off the nonsense of the current proposals.
	Finally, I want to say a few words about the future of the Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs offices in my constituency. So far, we have heard very little detail about the costs that the Government plan to save. I have tabled parliamentary questions and I hope that I will get a response to them. We are in danger of losing high-quality jobs in an area that can ill afford to lose them. It is time for the Government to look hard again at what they are proposing. I hope that they will do so and send out a signal that they understand rural areas.

Michael Penning: Many comments from hon. Members of all parties have been about the Post Office card account, and I will discuss the Post Office's future shortly. However, since Christmas, a couple of events have taken place in my constituency that I would like to bring to the House's attention. On the Dexion front, 700 of my constituents had their pensions stolen from them five years ago. After five years of campaigning, before I was a Member of Parliament and subsequently, with all those people sticking together, trying to get justice for themselves, the Government eventually introduced a compensation package, which would have given my constituents 80 per cent. of the pensions that were stolen from them. We did not accept thatwe stood our ground and got 90 per cent. Those payments have started to be made in the past few weeks. That proves to me that, if a community sticks together, no matter how big the organisation against which it is fighting, it can win.
	Those who drive through my constituency often get stuck because of roadworks on the M1 between junctions 6 and 10. Those works will be finished at Christmas and the widening of the road will open up Hemel Hempstead to much more retail use and many more businesses on the industrial estates. Sadly, the Government appear to have shelved the road widening from junctions 10 to 13, so my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Milton Keynes (Mr. Lancaster), who was here a few moments ago, will still get stuck because the Government have shelved the plans north of Luton.
	On a sad note, like many hon. Members, I have been inundated with concerns from my constituents in the rural and urban parts of my constituency about the closure of three post offices. The craziest aspect of the post office closures is the way in which they affect the most affluent and the poorest parts of our constituencies. Most people in the village of Potten End in my constituency would agree that it is a fairly affluent community, but it survives with one shop, with one post office inside it.
	Another part of my constituency, the Heights is, according to Government figures, one of the most socially deprived wards in the country, with the highest unemployment and economic inactivity in my constituency. It also has the most pensioners in my constituency. Believe it or not, that post office, too, is closing.
	When the Post Office explained to me that the closures had to go ahead, I asked, If my constituents fight, fill in petitions, send letters and contact the head of the Post Office, what difference will it make? The reply was, We can't tell you. We're in consultation. I then simply asked what percentage of consultations were successful. Let us all be honest with our constituentson what percentage of the consultations does the Post Office back off? The answer is 4 per cent. Ninety-six per cent. of proposed post office closures in this country go ahead. Let us be honest: the Government have made a decision and created an economic environment in the post office network that makes post offices not viableI intended to use another word, but it was inappropriate for the Chamber. They are not viable if business keeps being taken away from them and we do not let them sell the products for which our constituents prefer to use the post office.
	The other sad situation that continues is that of Hemel Hempstead hospital. Other hon. Members have also expressed concern about the future of their hospitals. The hospital is not Victorian, not falling downit was built in the 1970sand has been expanded over the years. Other hospitals in the Hemel Hempstead area have closed to join the central site, which is close to the M1 and the M25. A decision was made to close acute services therethe elective surgery would go to St. Albans and acute services would go to Watford. We fought that decision and delayed it; we fought it again and delayed it again. However, on the very day of the wonderful service in Westminster abbey to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the NHS, while I was in the queue to go through security, I took a call from the chief executive of West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust, who told me that, in the first week in March, Hemel Hempstead's acute services will close and be moved to Watford. For those who do not know where Watford hospital is, it is smack bang next to Watford football stadium. If Watford play at homeI wish the team every success; many of my constituents are Watford fansthey get a reasonable crowd and there is traffic chaos. An extra burden will be created because the Queen Elizabeth II hospital in St. Albans is to close. How on earth are two huge towns such as Watford and Hemel Hempstead, as well as St. Albans, to cope? We will fight the decision. We will not lie down and roll over. There will be another huge demonstration in my constituency in the autumn, when my constituents will again show that they do not want to lose their acute hospital. We do not want a polyclinic to replace an acute general hospitalindeed, we do not want a polyclinic at all. Our surgeries are vibrant and well served. None of the lists of any of the surgeries in the town are full, yet we will have a polyclinic in the middle of it imposed on us, with a catchment and list of about 8,000. That means that some of my surgeries will suffer.
	Finally, let me return to football. Sport has been talked about a lot today. Many of the people in the northern part of my constituency support Luton Town football club. It is a wonderfully historic club, but it is going through some particularly difficult times on the pitch, which have been exacerbated by poor management and the attitude of the Football League to a small club such as Luton Town. It will go into the season with a 30-point deduction. It will not survive that, so it will go out of the football league and into the conference. For any team in the country, a 30-point reduction would lead to relegation. For Luton Town, it will mean the end of league status. I do not believe that if Luton Town were Liverpool, Arsenal or any other premiership club, this would have been done to it. It has been done to it because it is a small club in a small community, and it has been hammered by the bureaucrats who want to set an example. They would not have done that to Arsenal, Liverpool or Manchester United; they should not be doing it to Luton Town.

David Amess: Before the House adjourns for the summer recess, I wish to raise a number of points, but I promise colleagues I shall do so briefly. I would not describe the Government as being in a state of disarray; I actually think they have disintegrated, and I am worried that if this drift continues until 2010, when we must have a general election, the situation will be very serious.
	My first point is to do with death. Constituents have petitioned me about the proposed closure of a local coroner's office. The office serves my constituency and surrounding constituencies. The proposal has been made without any consultation with the coroner, any related staff or the public. It will diminish the service, and we will be the only jurisdiction without a local service. I hope that message will be passed on.
	On post offices, last night I presented a petition signed by more than 1,000 people. It refers to the post office at 553 London road. The post office has been there since 1886, and the area I represent has the greatest number of senior citizens in the country. They cannot go to the post office in Hamlet court road. We have suffered closures in Fairfax drive, West road, The Ridgeway and Station road, so yet another post office closure would not be acceptable, and I am holding Gary Herbert and Clare Lovett to be as good as their word to me last week and to listen to my new representationthereby pushing up the proportion my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) mentioned from 4 per cent. to 5 per cent.
	Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs office in Southend is being reorganised. If that goes ahead, there will be a reduction in the local work force of 20 per cent. which would cause devastation locally with another 100 job losses on top of those already announced in 2007. This seems to go completely against the Thames Gateway strategy.
	I also wish to draw attention to the new local housing allowance that was introduced on 7 April. Anybody on local housing benefit who changes address will be reassessed under this scheme, and their rent benefit will be curtailed. The effect of that in my constituency is that local residents who are having to change property are in dire straits. This was a cost-cutting measure.
	My penultimate point is about equity release. I recently met the director-general of Safe Home Income Plans. The organisation regulates firms that offer equity release packages. In the current economic climate, senior citizens are suffering terribly, so they are having to look into equity release. Safe Home Income Plans deals only with reputable firms, but I am very worried that given the declining reputation of this way of releasing equity, representatives of any number of firms that are not reputable will knock on the doors of senior citizens, who may not be able to read the small print of the documents they are shown.
	Finally, I wish everyone a very happy summer, in particular the Land Army girls, including my mother, who will be receiving their medals tomorrow.

Julian Lewis: This is a rather personal speech, and I apologise for that. Shortly after it became clear that we had won the campaign to prevent MPs' home addresses from being disclosed as a result of future freedom of information requests, an honourable Labour lady Member who had suffered badly from the disclosure of her address approached me with a warning. She said, Be careful Julian, you will be targeted next for what you have done.
	I had expected from the outset that by organising this campaign, I would inevitably sacrifice some of my privacy by drawing attention to my own electoral arrangements, but I spelt them out in detail in the Whitsun Adjournment debate on 22 May, explaining how I have always registered under a nom de plume for security reasons, by arrangement with the electoral registration officer. On 4 July, the chief executive of New Forest district council, Dave Yates, wrote me a friendly letter in his capacity as electoral registration officer, saying that he wanted me to reconsider my practice of doing that, which had recently come to his attention. That was because the arrangement I had made to do that every year since 1996 had been superseded 12 months ago, by a new system of anonymous registration that needed to be counter-signed by a chief constable. As soon as Mr. Yates supplied me with the new form, I completed it and obtained the necessary signature, and I am now anonymously registered for the next five yearsalthough it turns out that I may have been wasting my time.
	I asked Mr. Yates whether I was correct in thinking that the matter had been raised with him by Terry Scriven, a retired colonel in the military police who will be standing against me at the next election, and he confirmed that that was so. Mr. Scriven could easily have asked me openly about this matter, but he is the sort of individual whom, unfortunately, one encounters from time to time in public lifethe sort of person who smears one in the papers but rushes to shake one's hand when one meets him. He insinuates wrongdoing without having the guts openly to accuse one. His political party is irrelevant to this sort of behaviour, which I have experienced on a number of previous occasions.
	Dave Yates saw no reason to deny that Mr. Scriven had e-mailed him about my registration arrangements, and eventually I was sent the relevant exchanges. The first e-mail was headed
	registration as a voter under a false name.
	It identified my home address in the constituency and asked who had authorised the procedure. The chief executive repliedI believe that he did so on 11 Julyconfirming that I had been registered under the nom de plume by arrangement with the previous electoral registration officer for reasons of personal security, but that, as the law had changed last year, I would be using the new system in future. Mr. Scriven said that he accepted that, and that should have been the end of the matter.
	However, last Fridayjust seven days latermy office was informed by Dave Yates and another senior council official, Dave Atwill, that a journalist had been in touch stating that he had seen an e-mail from Dave Yates that seemed to suggest an irregularity in my registration. The journalist was none other than Ben Leapman of  The Sunday Telegraphthe only participant in the freedom of information court case who had demanded the publication of all MPs' home addresses in order to check that we are not fiddling our expenses.
	I fully accept that a newspaper is perfectly at liberty to employ any journalist it likes, although the choice of Mr. Leapman by  The Sunday Telegraph has a certain incongruity; it gives me the sort of feeling that Labour Members would have if  The Guardian took on my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) or my hon. Friend, as I call him, the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) as its European Union correspondent. Unfortunately, apart from employing an anti-Conservative activist as a political journalist, The Sunday Telegraph has bought into his reckless campaign to expose MPs' addresses and has done everything it can to attack me and suppress the arguments against this.
	I have reasonably broad shouldersI would not have taken up this issue in the first place if I did not. However, one thing alone dismayed me: the fact that I knew that Terry Scriven had gratuitously included my home address in the e-mail correspondence with Dave Yates. If, as I had every reason to suspect, Mr. Scriven had disclosed these e-mails to Ben Leapman, I wanted to know whether he had at least had the decency to remove my address before communicating with the one reporter in the country who had ardently campaigned for the publication of MPs' home addresses and who, it is reasonable to infer, is extremely upset at the fact that, thanks to my campaign, that will not now happen.
	I therefore asked my office colleague, Mrs. Di Brooks, who is sadly not a retired colonel but a rather tough-minded, former RAF non-commissioned officer, to send Mr. Scriven the following e-mail:
	Dear Mr Scriven,
	Julian understands that you have made available to a newspaper journalist the exchange of emails between Dave Yates and yourself.
	As you know, and appeared to accept, there are security reasons why Julian does not wish his home address to be made public.
	Will you please confirm, as soon as possible, whether you removed the...address from these emails before you disclosed them to a third party?
	Now all Mr. Scriven needed to reply was that I was mistaken and he had not disclosed the e-mails to anyone. Alternatively, he could have admitted doing so. What he actually said was:
	Good Evening Di,
	Very nice to hear from you.
	I am sure Julian is aware of my security background. I support him totally in keeping the addresses of MPs, Prospective MPs and indeed Councillors addresses private and out of the public domain (this includes journalists).
	That was not exactly a direct answer to the question, so Di wrote back again:
	Dear Mr Scriven,
	Two simple questions...Have you disclosed any of the contents of any of Dave Yates's and your e-mails about Julian's address to a newspaper reporter or haven't you? A simple yes or no is all that is needed ... If the answer is yes, then did you remove the details of his home address ... or didn't you?
	Instead of getting a simple yes or no to either of those questions, she received this reply from the straight-talking colonel:
	Dear Di,
	I think you need to read my mails carefully and I also think you need to think carefully about how you phrase your emails.
	Finally, let us...be clear about the role/capacity you are writing what appear to be demanding emails to me.
	Such exchanges were repeated several more times, with Mr. Scriven ducking and diving, dodging and weaving, but ultimately saying that he would clear up any confusions I might have at an event on Sunday at which we would both be present. However, he did not do that, and I handed him a very short letter which asked him to state, without further prevarication, direct answers to those two questions. He took the envelope and headed at high speed to the nearest gentlemen's toilet, where he remained for several minutes. It is conceivable that he did not open the envelope there, but I find that hard to believe. Nevertheless he still did not answer the questions.
	In the meantime, Ben Leapman had been pestering Dave Yates with phone calls at home on Friday evening, trying to stand up a story that I had behaved illegally by registering under a nom de plume. Mr. Yates sent Leapman away with a flea in his ear and wrote to me yesterday saying that he is
	happy to confirm to anyone who is interested that your dealings with me and my Electoral Registration officers have been in complete good faith on all occasions.
	Finally, after several more e-mails and a deadline, I received a letter this morning from Mr. Scriven, who finally assured me that he did not disclose the information. He suggests that it could have been released because people had put in freedom of information requests to the council and got hold of the e-mails that way. I have checked with the council, and no such information request was made. I therefore have to rely on  The Sunday Telegraph to tell me whether Ben Leapman is now in possession of my private home address, which is quite properly anonymously registered, irrespective of whether the e-mail correspondence was supplied to him by Terry Scriven, phantom FOI requesters, Father Christmas or little green men from Mars.

Sarah Teather: Two and a half months ago, a man was stabbed to death at the end of my street. Michael Mann, who was in his early 40s, was killed by a single stab wound in front of his partner, Natasha, and their six-month-old baby, leaving a bewildered family to try to pick up the pieces. The trauma of that experience was exacerbated considerably by the complete incompetence of Natasha's housing association, PCHA, which refused to take her request for rehousing seriously, despite the fact that it was her neighbours from an adjacent flat who were arrested for the murder and then bailed. Sadly, that is an all too common experience.
	Michael Mann's murder brought to a close a period of relative calm in Brent. We had begun to think that we had turned a corner after several years of high-profile gun and knife crime fatalities. The most famous and shocking was the killing of the child Toni-Ann Byfield in 2003. It is seared in my memory because she was murdered just days before the by-election in Brent, East, and the front pages of the newspapers that told the story of my victory also carried photographs of children carrying candles in a vigil outside the house in which she was killed.
	Things had seemed a little better until May this year, when three people were killed in the space of just a week. The toll now stands at two fatal gun attacks and two fatal stabbings. The headlines have all been about young people and gangs, but the fatalities in Brent this year have been adults, mostly killed by other adults, with causes ranging from domestic violence to neighbour disputes. It is a complex picture and we need to be careful not to make too great a generalisation about the causes. There is no doubt that the fatalities of adults have masked many other incidents involving young people, which are often not reported to the police because of fear or because of a lack of belief in the police's ability to tackle the problem.
	Policy Exchange's recent report, Going Ballistic, said that only one in four young offenders thought that the police could protect them from crime. More shockingly, two thirds of those who thought that the police could not protect them had previously been threatened with a knife, so there is often a cycle. Perhaps the greatest challenge in tackling knife crime is tackling the fear that everybody else is carrying a knife. It is important to put on the record that a recent random search of 300 young people at a school in Brent found that none of those children was carrying a knife. The concern about knife crime, which is rightly expressed, often fuels that fear in young people and means that they think that they will be safe only if they all carry a knife. There is a desperate need to tackle that problem, perhaps with better and closer relationships on a ward level between community police and young people.
	Research on gun crime in Brent has turned up a similarly complex picture. The council commissioned research that was published in 2005, and is going on to commission further work that looks at the causes of gun crime in Brent. The 2005 research contradicted many of the stereotypes. It found that gun crime was not just a problem of one ethnic group against another, and neither was it about drugs. It is not necessarily directly related to gangs. We have had gang problems in Brent, but the research shows that the incidence of gun crime is not always related to gang crime.
	As Policy Exchange found, the distinction between victims and offenders is often blurred. The Brent study found that all those people who offended with guns have been victims of crime. Most had been victims of gun crime and half had had family or friends who were directly affected. Perhaps the most interesting feature of the research and the most common feature between offenders was a hyper-material culture and attachment to overt wealth. There is a bit of a moral parable about what happens when someone values things that they can see rather than things that are about them as an individual. When that is coupled with a fear of violence, it is easy to see how people can get into a cycle where life is cheap.
	We have many ongoing projects in Brent that work through the umbrella project, Not Another Drop. I want to highlight one particular project, which targets young people who are thought to be at risk of or on the cusp of being involved in serious violence. It is called In-volve RAW and focuses on young people in the south Kilburn area of my constituency and in Harlesden and Stonebridge in neighbouring areas, as well as the Harrow road corridor that runs between those two areas. It focuses on raising self-esteem and trying to tackle the problem caused when people's sense of value is about overt wealth rather than themselves. The project tries to reverse negative self-images and, in particular, tries to help young people to deal with anger and a sense of hopelessness. It is an interesting project that I hope that the Government will look at carefully and consider replicating in other areas.
	Finally, I want to mention the fact that that project, along with many other projects in Brent, suffers from a lack of consistent and stable funding. It is difficult for the council and other community organisations to plan the funding of good projects in Brent when initiatives and priorities constantly change. I have one plea for the Government: will they consider a more stable way of funding this difficult work with difficult communities, who need long-term work in order to build up trust?

Stewart Jackson: I am mindful of the time constraints, so I shall be brief. I want to bring to the attention of the House an important issue concerning the practical flaws in the Education and Inspections Act 2006, and in particular in how it operates in relation to failing schools. I voted for the Bill two years ago and feel predisposed to make comments, which are not party political in nature, on it. I invite the House and the Deputy Leader of the House, through her Ministers, to review what actions are needed to ensure that the provisions laid down to deal with failing schools can be used with greater alacrity.
	My concern is for some of my constituents' children who have been adversely affected as a consequence of an ineffectual head teacher, a weak and compliant governing body and a local education authority that was willing to act but was circumscribed by legislation. The school to which I refer is St. John Fisher school, a Roman Catholic voluntary secondary school in Peterborough. It is a mixed school of 744 pupils and, until quite recently, it was one of the highest performing schools in the Peterborough local education authority area. The school operates within the Roman Catholic diocese of East Anglia and, in particular, within the diocesan board of education.
	From 1999 until 17 July this year, the school's head was Mary Mihovilovic. She resigned last week for personal reasons, and this week signed a compromise agreement. Significant problems were identified at the school, particularly in regard to the management of the school and the quality of the education, as long ago as 2004, when a warning notice was issued by the local education authority as a result of a serious breakdown in the way the school was managed and governed, which was seen as likely to prejudice future standards of performance.
	The initial warning in that year was subsequently rescinded. It was clear, however, that things were not improving. In the past four years, results have plummeted, the school has had difficulty in attracting and retaining newly qualified teachers, and the head teacher was the only head teacher in the country who refused to take part in the excellence clusters programme. Trade unions surveyed the staff, and the results that were presented to the governing body showed a culture of centralised control, bullying and intimidation. This was routinely dismissed by the governing body as an attack on the head.
	The senior management team refused to communicate with outside bodies such as the diocesan board, the LEA and Cambridgeshire constabulary. Difficult governors were removed, and teachers who would not co-operate with the head were asked to resign or made redundant. There were questions about the appropriateness of having a personal friend of the head as the chair of the governors. It has emerged only in the last few months that the governing body actually voted for a 20,000 fund for legal fees to enable the head to send legal letters to people who fell foul of her, including some on the LEA and the diocesan board.
	Matters reached a head in late 2007, when the governing body removed an LEA governor, Councillor Stephen Goldspinkwho also happened to be the deputy leader of the city council, and who was attending an extraordinary meeting of Peterborough city council at the timefor having the temerity to complain about the inconvenience to his constituents of inconsiderate parking by some parents at the school.
	This year, it has been confirmed that the school is now on the infamous list of 638 failing schools, having fallen below the target floor. By 27 February this year, Peterborough city council had issued a warning notice to the school on the basis of pupil bullying, declining standards, the effectiveness and function of the governing body, staffing issues and a lack of willingness to engage with external partners and stakeholders. A section 8 inspection by Ofsted in April resulted in one of the worst inspection reports for any secondary school in the Peterborough local education authority area, the school being rated inadequate in 19 out of 26 categories. On 5 June 2008, the school was put into special measures under section 13 of the Education Act 2005.
	The key question now is how will the present legislation, Ofsted and the Department for Children, Schools and Families be able to deal with a rogue governing body and a head teacher who refused to acknowledge or engage with statutory bodies, and who used delay, obfuscation and the appeal process for more than six months, which is more than half the school year? That is the problem that we face. Lessons need to be learned, particularly in regard to the role of the diocesan board, which had no statutory powers to intervene, and to the process of appeals against the legislation.
	Thankfully, the school now has a new head, Mr. Sean Hayes, formerly the head of St. Alban's school in Ipswich, and a new interim independent executive board. They are focusing on discipline and teaching standards and on improving poor results. I wish them well, but we must remember that some of the most deprived children in my constituency have lost a vital year in their education.
	I ask Ministers to ensure that such a situation could not and should not happen again. I implore the Deputy Leader of the House, perhaps in her remarks at the end of the debate, to give an undertaking to that effect.

Bob Spink: rose

Daniel Rogerson: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Shailesh Vara.

Shailesh Vara: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and may I also thank all the

Bob Spink: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it possible to find a way either to extend the debate, or reduce the amount of Front-Bench time in what is essentially a Back-Bench debate? That would enable Back Benchers who have sat here all day to deliver their speeches, even though they might have only a few minutes to make their

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of this House and he knows exactly how we operate. It is unfortunate that people who have been here all day sometimes do not get called, but there is nothing that the Chair can do about it other than to exhort Members to take a little less time when they speak. Now we are only taking time out of what remains. I call Shailesh Vara.

Shailesh Vara: Thank you again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and may I take this opportunity to thank everyone who was able to contribute to this end-of-term debate? As always, a number of issues were covered, ranging from the local to the international.
	The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Jim Dowd) made a very conscientious speech, and not for the first time he spoke about the local transport situation affecting his constituents. Resolving those problems will not be easy, but I certainly wish him well in all his efforts.
	The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) spoke for most if not all hon. Members when he rightly welcomed the moves being taken towards achieving some sort of peace settlement in Zimbabwe. However, given President Mugabe's record in these matters, we must recognise that these are only talks. We must maintain the pressure on Mugabe and his regime, as we will be able to have a sense of rejoicing only when an actual result has been achieved. I should also like to take this opportunity to welcome the involvement of South Africa's President Mbeki, who I very much hope will use his considerable influence in other parts of Africa.
	The hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) gave a very knowledgeable speech, in which he raised some issues concerning United Utilities. He said that he wrote to United Utilities three times before he got a reply, and that he is still waiting for a reply from the Minister. However, if the past record of ministerial responses is anything to go by, even when he gets a reply from the Minister he will probably need a lot more than three supplementary letters before he gets a substantive response.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) gave a very serious speech about the data stored by paedophiles. He has spoken about the problem before, and he has considerable expertise and knowledge about it. All of us in the House wish him well in his endeavours to ensure greater protection for children and families who are victims of paedophiles.
	The hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) spoke up for catering staff at Airedale hospital trust. I very much hope that the decision due to be taken on Thursday is the right one for all concerned.
	A number of hon. Members raised the very real issue that affects constituencies around the country: the closure of post offices. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning), my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) and the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) all described how the closure of local post offices was ripping the very heart out of their communities. I think that we all share their concernsI certainly do, as I was informed only some two weeks ago that five post offices in my constituency were to be closed.
	On the theme of post offices, the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Davies) gave a heartfelt speech about the Post Office card account. Like him, we have all received hundreds if not thousands of letters from constituents urging that the Post Office card account be retained, and that demonstrates the enormous strength of feeling among the public on this issue.
	The right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) gave a typically eloquent speech. He talked about a consultation on alcohol and its relation to crime; I look forward to its conclusions. I hope that the Government will take on board the good points raised in the consultation, although their usual practice is to kick matters into the long grass by announcing another review.
	Few Members present will not have had large numbers of constituents raise tax credit issues with them. My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) spoke for many of us when he highlighted the problems of overpayment, and the problems with the process of recovery that follows.
	The hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) gave an appropriate speech, given recent sport activities. During the recess, he may well receive hundreds of letters from cricket fans who welcome his plea that cricket be made available on free-to-air TV.
	About midway through the debate, we heard a light-hearted, humorous speech by the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson); it came at just the right time. However, he had a serious message to convey about the A11. I am sure that the changes that he proposed will not easily be agreed to, but I have no doubt that he will continue to fight for them in his usual way.
	The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) raised some very serious points about information, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act 2000, on Heathrow airport and BAA. I suspect that the issue will run for a while yet, and that we have not heard the last of it.
	The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) is a veteran of these Adjournment debates. I trust that the Deputy Leader of the House will pass on to the relevant Minister in the Department for Transport the hon. Lady's concern about the concrete surface of the A180, which is being replaced on only one carriageway.
	It is vital that when cities and towns consider expansion, they do not overlook the growth of infrastructure. That was rightly pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Milton Keynes (Mr. Lancaster), when he spoke of expansion in his constituency.
	On the subject of expansion, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton) spoke of the inconsistency of the south-east plan, which threatens the green belt, despite statements having been made by the Prime Minister in the House urging protection of the green belt. My hon. Friend asked the Deputy Leader of the House a simple question about how to square the Prime Minister's statement with the reality, and I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will give her a reasonable, straightforward answer.
	In the past three years, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) has demonstrated how robustly he defends the rights of his constituents, as regards their local hospital. He has fought hard for that hospital, and I have every confidence that he will continue his campaign to save it.
	In a succinct speech, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Dr. Taylor) raised a huge number of points and demonstrated his expertise on health matters. I very much hope that Health Ministers will find time during the recess to consider some of them.
	The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore) rightly pointed out the enormous concern felt by businesses and individuals about the great increase in fuel costs. That issue concerns all our constituents, and he was right to raise it today.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), another veteran of these Adjournment debates, mentioned the fact that land-girls, including his mother, will receive medals tomorrow. I am sure that I speak for all of us when I say that we share in celebrating the good news, and we congratulate all of them on their achievements and their medals.
	My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) raised some very serious concerns about his campaign to ensure the secrecy of MPs' second-home addresses. The whole House will agree that it is to be hoped that there will be no adverse impact, for him or his loved ones, resulting from his campaign.
	The hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) spoke of the tragedy of gun and knife crime, which affects so many people. I think that we would all agree that we must all work together to try to deal with that scourge.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson), a constituency neighbour, raised the concerns of the St. John Fisher schoolconcerns that affect hundreds of children. I hope that there is a concerted effort by all concerned to ensure that there is a satisfactory solution in the near future.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker, it only remains for me now to wish you, all the officials and staff of the House, all Members and their staff and the security staff who do so much to look after us a very happy recess and we look forward to seeing everybody safely back in October.

Helen Goodman: It is always a pleasure to take part in the pre-recess Adjournment debate and to follow the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara). When I was a child I never really understood the meaning of the phrase The show isn't over until the fat lady sings, but I think I understand it now.
	The debate was opened by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Jim Dowd), who talked about the rail connections from his constituency to central London. It is fortunate that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris), is here to note that that matter needs to be looked into.
	The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) began by raising some international issues. He may be aware that Zimbabwe will be on the agenda in Europe next Tuesday. He may also be aware that the President of Cyprus and the President of North Cyprus will be meeting on 25 July to have talks. I am sure that he is also aware that Lord Malloch-Brown has recently been in Sri Lanka.
	The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of knife crime, which has been very much in people's minds because of some horrific deaths recently, particularly, but not only, in London. Those points were echoed by the hon. Members for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) and for Brent, East (Sarah Teather). It is interesting that that was a focus for London Members, because it is clearly a problem in London and the big cities. The hon. Members for North Southwark and Bermondsey and for Brent, East asked about funding for young people's centres and whether or not money from dormant bank accounts will be released early. I can confirm that that will be the case.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) raised a rather complex question about common land. He talked also about the unfair pricing of utilities, particularly with regard to churches. My understanding is that the Secretary of State put out guidance on this in 2000 and churches are supposed to benefit from lower charges. He talked about NHS Logistics and the position of the workers there. My understanding is that there is to be a ballot on the point raised by my hon. Friend.
	The hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) talked about the importance of the Home Office and the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform dealing more toughly with internet paedophilia. He raised the question of whether the penalties under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 were adequate. I will convey the urgency of the matter to my colleagues in the relevant Departments.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) demonstrated once again what a hard-working and caring MP she is on behalf of her constituents. She talked about the need for more investment in the Airedale general hospital, in particular the need for investment in kitchens and the canteen. My understanding is that the Minister of State will have a meeting with my hon. Friend to discuss this matter, although in the first instance this is a matter for the local trust board.
	The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean) spoke about the needs of rural communities. Since I share a boundary with him, I am deeply sympathetic to what he was saying. He talked about the performance of the Northwest Regional Development Agency. I commend to the right hon. Gentleman the new regional Select Committees that will be set up, as I do to the hon. Member for Guildford (Anne Milton) who talked about the regional spatial strategy in her area. Those Select Committees will provide hon. Members with opportunities to examine the performance of regional bodies.
	The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border also discussed post office closures.

Daniel Rogerson: As this is the only parliamentary opportunity between the start of the consultation on post office closures in Cornwall and the closures at the end of the programme in September, will the Deputy Leader of the House take to her ministerial colleagues the utter despair of my constituents, particularly in the area around Bude, where six post offices are closing in a very rural area? I hope that she will convey my constituents' dismay that the programme is being conducted in the summer, when there will not be adequate scrutiny.

Helen Goodman: The hon. Gentleman has made his point. The hon. Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning), for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore), for Solihull (Lorely Burt), for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Davies) and for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) also raised the problem of post office closures. Obviously, I will pass those comments on to the Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs. My own view is strongly influenced by the fact that 12 post offices have closed in my constituency.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) discussed the General Electric site that is for sale in his constituency and the importance of brownfield land being used for housing. The proportion of brownfield land used for housing has increased from 56 to 75 per cent. in the past 10 years.
	The hon. Member for Bosworth discussed tax credits. He raised the administrative problems, but he forgot to remind the House that 600,000 children have been lifted out of poverty through child tax credits. Although the rate of error and fraud is too high at 7.5 per cent., it is much lower than the 13 per cent. rate that we inherited from the previous Administration on jobseeker's allowance.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) has long been a champion of the interests of ordinary viewers who want to see the best matches on television. He again raised that issue, on which he has been a consistent champion, and I understand from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport that the matter is under consideration.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Selby and other hon. Members also discussed the alcohol strategy. The consultation document was published today, and the consultation will examine whether the voluntary code should be replaced by a mandatory one.
	The hon. Member for North Dorset mentioned procurement in the aeroplane sector, which affects his constituency.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) discussed his desire to see more investment in the A11, but I am not sure whether he realises that 14 schemes have been completed locally in the past year.
	The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton spoke about charity shops overburdening some small town centres in her constituency, and I will pass on her views to my colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) discussed the proposals to extend Heathrow and his concern about the decision-making processes. His comments will be examined by Ministers in the Department for Transport. He also mentioned the insecurity faced by some BBC employees and the proposal to change the operation of the World Service. The World Service is, I think, the responsibility of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to which I will pass on his comments.
	The hon. Member for Solihull spoke about the interaction of the Post Office with the Department for Work and Pensions. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) gave a speech that demonstrated once again what an effective Member she is on behalf of her constituents. She talked about the importance of fire installations and the extraordinary proposal of North East Lincolnshire council, which intends to
	 It being Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Crossrail Bill

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must inform the House that a message has been brought from the Lords as follows. The Lords have agreed to the Crossrail Bill with amendments, to which they desire the agreement of the Commons. Copies of the Lords amendments are available in the Vote Office. I must inform the House that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 50 to 56. If the House agrees to the amendments, I shall arrange for the necessary entries to be made in the Journal.
	 Ordered,
	That the Lords amendments to the Crossrail Bill be considered forthwith. [Steve McCabe.]
	 Lords amendments accordingly considered.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 32 to 45 agreed to .

Clause 20
	  
	Control of construction sites: appeals

Lords amendment: No. 2.

Tom Harris: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 28 and 30.

Tom Harris: Lords amendments Nos. 2, 28 and 30 give effect to the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Before I continue, it is appropriate for me to offer my gratitude to the usual channels, my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House and right hon. and hon. Opposition Members for agreeing that this Bill be returned to the Commons today so that Members can agree to the Lords amendments. I am grateful to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its consideration of the delegated powers contained in the Crossrail Bill and for its report of 31 January this year. The Committee made three recommendations in respect of the powers of the Secretary of State to make secondary legislation under the Bill.
	The first recommendation related to clause 60(1), which in turn relates to the power of the Secretary of State to devolve functions to the London government. As the Committee noted, clause 60(1) confers what is, in effect, a Henry VIII power to modify references in the Act to the Secretary of State to references to the Greater London authority, Transport for London, or both, and to make consequential provision that may include modifying the Crossrail Act.
	The second and third recommendations both related to secondary legislation that makes provision about arbitration. Clause 20 modifies the operation of sections 60 and 61 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, so that appeals relating to noise emanating from construction sites are determined by the Secretary of State orif the parties agreeby arbitration, rather than by a magistrates court.
	Clause 20(4) enables the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, acting jointly, to make regulations about the procedure in relation to such arbitrations. Such regulations would be made by a statutory instrument not currently subject to a parliamentary procedure by virtue of the Bill. Clause 63 makes provision for the arbitration of disputes under the Act, unless otherwise provided for, such as in the example that I have just mentioned. Subsection (5) enables the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Transport, acting jointly, to make rules about the arbitration by procedure.
	Those rules will be made by a statutory instrument that is not currently subject to a parliamentary procedure in accordance with the Bill. The Committee recommended that since one or other of the Secretaries of State might be a party to an arbitration arising from the Bill, arbitration rules made under clause 20 or clause 63 should be subject to the negative resolution parliamentary procedure. Having carefully considered the report, the Government agreed with what the Committee proposed in each case.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	Before Clause 22

New Clause

Lords amendment: No. 3.

Tom Harris: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to deal with Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 26, 29 and 31.

Tom Harris: This is a large group of amendments concerning the railway matters in the Bill, and it will take me a few minutes to explain them. The majority complete actions that were promised during the Commons stages of the Bill. The dozen clauses 23 to 34 were included in the Bill as reserve powers to ensure, principally through overriding duties on the Office of Rail Regulation, that Crossrail can be built and Crossrail services can operate. In parallel with the Bill process, the Department for Transport has negotiated an access option with Network Rail to grant the necessary access rights for Crossrail services so as to provide essential security on which to base investment in the Crossrail project. Following industry-wide consultation, including holding a hearing, the ORR issued its decision on 14 April this year to approve the access option with modifications. Yesterday, the ORR gave its formal directions under the Railways Act 1993, which marks the completion of the legal documentation for the access option. As a result, the reserve powers in the Bill can now be deleted as proposed in amendments Nos. 5 to 16.
	Two new clauses are proposed under amendments No. 3 and 4. Amendment No. 3 includes an additional objective of facilitating the construction of Crossrail in the ORR's list of objectives in section 4(1) of the Railways Act 1993. This does not direct the ORR on how it should meet that new objective. That is for its judgment as the independent rail regulator in the circumstances at the time, balancing all its section 4(1) objectives. The provision is precedented by section 17 of the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006.
	Amendment No. 4 requires the ORR to produce a report on what it has done, or proposes to do, to meet its new Crossrail construction-related objective and on how it has exercised, or proposes to exercise, any of its functions in relation to the operation of Crossrail services. That is to aid transparency, given that the ORR, in reaching decisions that take account of all relevant interests, is important to the successful delivery of the Crossrail project.
	Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 20 relate to clause 35. The clause disapplies the prohibition in the Railways Act 1993 on a public sector operator acting as a franchisee, which provides flexibility to accommodate a potentially public sector franchisee of Crossrail passenger services if that is considered desirable. It might, for example, be in the period when Crossrail services are being phased in, during which it could be challenging to let a conventional private sector franchise. Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 20 extend that flexibility in two respects in order to ease the construction of Crossrail and the bringing into operation of services.
	Amendment No. 17 enables ancillary or complementary services to be included within a Crossrail public sector franchise. That is to aid franchise mapping, so as to avoid services closely related to Crossrail services becoming orphans, as it were, because they do not logically fit into another group of services that are franchised. Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 provide for a public sector franchise for services that are likely to suffer substantial disruption because of the construction of Crossrail. Better value for money may be achieved by managing certain suburban services as part of project delivery.
	Amendments Nos. 21 to 24 deal with another matter. This is not so much a change in policy, but a modification to the legal route by which this is delivered. The background is that the Railways (London Regional Transport) (Exemptions) Order 1994 exempts the London underground network from regulation under the Railways Act 1993. Unless we can amend that order, there might be unintended exemptions or applications of regulations relating to the Crossrail tunnels or their interchanges with relevant London underground stations.
	We looked again at the powers that the Secretary of State already enjoys under the 1993 Act, and we concluded that we would be able to amend the order under them. Given that it is reasonably likely that we will use powers under the 1993 Act in any event, it will be simpler and clearer to rely solely on those powers rather than have specific provisions for amendment in clause 36. It is a different means to the same end.
	Finally, amendment No. 26 relates to clause 40. This clause is based on a provision contained in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996, and provides an obligation to co-operate between the nominated undertaker and controllers of railway assets with which Crossrail construction, maintenance or operation interact. The asset controllers in question include London Underground and the public private partnerships, BAA, and Network Rail. Either party can require the other party to enter into an agreement, and if this cannot be reached, it is referred to arbitration, for which clauses 41 and 42 establish the arrangements.
	Amendment No. 26 ensures that clause 40 cannot be used in circumstances where the matter may be dealt with by the Office of Rail Regulationin effect, requiring a solution to be reached under the aegis of the normal regulatory processes. Amendments Nos. 19, 20, 25, 29 and 31 are consequential.

Stephen Hammond: First, may I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for making available advance copies of the explanatory notes? I would like to take the opportunity to say how much we welcome the written statement of 14 July on the subject of publishing financial data in relation to Crossrail. He will be well aware that during all stages of the Bill's progress, I have been urging him to accept one of my well-worded amendments. It would have required the Government to publish an annual statement setting out that financial data. Although we are upset that he did not feel able to accept that amendment, we are pleased to see that the Bill will include such a provision. It is always good to see the Government adopting excellent ideas, and I thank him for his assurances in that statement on that part of the Crossrail project.
	This group of amendments will do some quite important things, in that it will do away with the previous clauses 23 and 24 and replace them with new clauses. Those clauses, which the Lords now seek to amend, were the subject of some lengthy discussions in Committee. They dealt with the so-called interim period, which is the time between the granting of Royal Assent to the Bill, which I guess is not far off now, and the day on which passenger services commence on Crossrail. During that so-called interim period, the Office of Rail Regulation was to have an overriding duty to exercise its access contract functions in such a way to facilitate the operation of Crossrail.
	The idea of an overriding duty was a principle that we were willing to acceptafter all, it had a precedent in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act of 1996. However, of great concern to us was the fact that the interim period was ill-defined and could be subject to unnecessary extension. Our fears were compounded when we saw the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Supplementary Provisions) Bill recently, which did indeed extend the interim period for High Speed 1 beyond the construction phase. We were concerned about the interim period being turned into an indefinite period. The amendment will remove those clauses, and give us a definite time scale. The new clauses proposed by the Lords in the amendment will be welcomed by my party. The powers in question were merely reserve powers that the Government intended to use only if normal industry procedures were not possible.
	This time last year, the Government and Network Rail applied to the ORR for access rights for Crossrail on the existing network, and the ORR approved this access option on 14 April. With that agreement in place, there is no longer the need for Network Rail to be told when and where to enter into access agreements, and the operator of Crossrail will no longer have superior access rights to other operators, which is to be welcomed.
	I would like the Minister to clarify the purpose of the first amendment in the group, which inserts a new, but not overriding, objective into the remit of the ORR, namely the facilitation of the construction of Crossrail. We are often told that the amendments we table are unnecessary, but if the overriding need is taken away, I am not sure that this amendment is necessary. Perhaps the Minister could explain why he thinks it is. As for the London railway Act, open brackets close brackets, which he described so ably a few minutes ago, can he tell us exactly what might happen if the amendment were not enacted?

Tom Harris: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments, but I fear that I may not be in a position to offer him as full a response as he as requested. I should be more than happy to write to him, but I hope he will accept my reassurances from the Dispatch Box.
	I suddenly feel inspiration descend. I am talking off the top of my head, of course. The new objective in clause 22 is desirable because the ORR should specifically address issues such as those relating to the network code that could frustrate Crossrail construction. However, the objectives of the ORR are considered and weighed collectively. The ORR will therefore have to balance the interests of Crossrail construction with those of affected users and operators. I trust that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

Graham Stringer: My hon. Friend will recall that during the mayoral elections, Ken Livingstone boasted that 40 billion would be spent on transport in London. Some of that would come from Crossrail, some from Thameslink and some from other projects. Can he assure me that passing responsibility to the ORR will not enable the current Mayor to increase that amount, and can he tell me what the Barnett consequentials of this or other clauses might be? Many of us in the regions are worried

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I urge the Minister not to be tempted too far down that road. The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) has been quite clever, but what we are discussing is the Crossrail Bill.

Tom Harris: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend's proposition was very tempting. I can tell him that the details of the management of the Crossrail franchise are not set in stone, and are a matter for discussion further down the line. As for the Barnett consequentials, the Barnett formula is a matter of record.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the Minister has probably concluded his remarks.

Tom Harris: indicated dissent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It appears that the Minister is happy to give way yet again.

Jeremy Corbyn: I genuinely thank the Minister. As he knows, I welcome and support Crossrail. Will he tell us when and how the talks and negotiations on the franchise operation will take place, and whether he expects to issue a regulation or statement?

Tom Harris: We expect full services on Crossrail to start in 2017. I expect to make an announcement before then about the structure of the franchise.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the Minister has now concluded his response.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 26 agreed to.
	After Clause 47

New Clause

Lords amendment: No. 27.

Tom Harris: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to deal with Lords amendment No. 47.

Tom Harris: The amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State and London Government can give an unqualified commitment at the start of the Crossrail project in relation to a potential future transfer of assets between Transport for London and the Secretary of State. Governance arrangements for the project currently allow that if the forecast final cost breaches an agreed level, the Department has the right to take back control of the project, including ownership of CLRLCross London Rail Linksand, indirectly, assets of Crossrail. However, the Greater London Authority Act 1999 provides that, at any given time, Transport for London should follow the direction of the Mayor in the exercise of its functions and that the Secretary of State must consent to the disposal of assets by TfL.
	The provisions being sought in the amendment are permissive and limited to actions for the purposes of Crossrail only. They do nothing more than ensure that the obligations entered into on signature of the sponsor agreement will endure. The provisions also seek to allow agreement to be reached now as to the use of a transfer scheme, such as a possible transfer of assets between TfL and the Department for Transport.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 28 to 45 agreed to.

Schedule 12
	  
	Transfer schemes

Lords amendment: No. 46.

Tom Harris: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 48 to 56.

Tom Harris: Schedule 12 already provides for the granting of new land interests as part of a transfer of assets between or from public bodies. These are known as transfer schemes. The proposed amendments to schedule 12 will enable the simple grant of new land interests, such as a lease, to happen by way of a transfer scheme even where that is separate from the transfer of other assets. The amendment will enable the Secretary of State to retain flexibility in how she puts in place land ownership arrangements required for Crossrail. The amendments proposed to schedule 13 are consequential and avoid a tax distinction arising that is based on the type of transfer scheme under which a lease is created.

Stephen Hammond: I shall not trouble the House for long, but I want to be clear about the arrangements. When we discussed the Bill in Committee, we looked at the restrictions on the land that the Secretary of State could, in seeking to define that land which would be necessary for the construction or operation of Crossrail, require to be either compulsorily acquired or transferred, permanently or temporarily, to CLRL, the nominated undertaker or, indeed, the Secretary of State. Can the Minister reassure us that the new land interest is restricted to that land that is required for either the construction or the operation of Crossrail?

Tom Harris: I can indeed give the hon. Gentleman that reassurance. We had a number of productive debates in the Public Bill Committee on the issue. It is not in the Government's interestand it is certainly not in CLRL's interestto force the compulsory sale of land that is not going to be used either temporarily or permanently for the construction of Crossrail. I assure him that the transparency measures in the Bill will ensure that that happens.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 47 to 56 agreed to [some with Special Entry] .

Petitions
	  
	Sea Defences

Norman Lamb: I am grateful to have the opportunity to present a 15,000-signature petition on an issue that has caused enormous concern and anxiety among people living in the broads area of my constituency. A leaked report from Natural England raised the possibility of an area of 25 sq m that includes six villages being lost to the North sea as a result of rising sea levels. One can imagine the concern that that caused and the immediate impact that it had on house prices and people's everyday lives.
	We received substantial reassurance when the Minister for the Environment visited the area and gave his commitment that the Government would do everything they could to defend it. However, it still important that the petition is presented, to reinforce the importance of protecting such a beautiful area. The petition says:
	The Petition of residents of North Norfolk and others.
	Declares the Petitioners serious concern at the option contained in a paper from Natural England for an area of approximately 25 square miles to be inundated by the sea. The Petitioners consider that the news of this option being under consideration has caused a great deal of unnecessary distress.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to confirm he will take every step necessary to protect this area of North East Norfolk from the sea by defending the coastline.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000249]

Traffic Noise (M3)

Maria Miller: I present this petition on behalf of more than 2,000 residents in Basingstoke, who are increasingly concerned about the levels of noise and traffic congestion connected with the M3, particularly around junctions 5 to 7. Over the past 10 years, there has been a dramatic increase in traffic on the motorway, which means that more local residents are affected by more noise and excessive tailbacks on the motorway at peak times. As a result, some areas in my constituency, particularly the villages and suburbs around Basingstoke, are experiencing quite significant increases in rat-running. Hence, the petitioners request the House to urge the Government to stop the delay and install noise-reducing road surfaces on all six lanes of the M3 and to put in place improvements to junction 6 that will ease the traffic flow at peak times, as it is affecting not just residents but major employers in the Basingstoke area. This amounts to much-needed investment to fill a yawning infrastructure gap created by an ever-increasing level of house building demanded by the Government in Basingstoke and in the south-east more generally.
	 Following is the full text of the petition:
	 [ The Petition of the residents of Basing and others,
	 Declares that traffic on M3 has increased dramatically between junctions 5 and 7 over the past 10 years; that this has led to significant increases in noise levels for many local residents, excessive peak time motorway tail backs and consequently unacceptable levels of rat running in our villages and suburban areas.
	 The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement their plan to install noise reducing road surfaces on all 6 lanes of the motorway and to put in place improvements to junction 6 to ease traffic flow at peak times.
	 And the Petitioners remain, etc. ]
	[P000257]

GP/Pharmacy Services (Mole Valley)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mark Tami.]

Paul Beresford: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a small issue that is of deep concern to many people in my constituency. I would like to thank the Minister, especially as she is the last Minister to be standing, as it were, in the pre-recess period. I do not envy her; I have been in the same position before, and I hope that she has recovered from the shock of having to respond to this debate. I also hope that she will be sweetness and light, to the benefit of my constituents. What I am really asking is for the Minister to show a little understanding and perhaps some flexibility in her Department's thinking. As she will be aware, nationally applied rigidity can be damaging. I hope that she will listen gently and, as I have done several times, set aside her official speech and concentrate on the little bits and pieces that I raise in the debate.
	To provide a bit of background, Mole Valley is the largest Surrey constituency; it is very different from the Minister's deep urban seat. Having been a local councillor in a solid London inner-city borough, I have some idea of the problems she has to face in her Bristol constituency with tower blocks, unemployment, health conditions and so on and so forth. My constituency is, as I said, very different. It has two small towns and approximately 32 to 33 villages, so it is rural and semi-rural. Some of the villages are large, most are small. The gaps between villages are often considerable green farming areas.
	Transport is predominately by private car and there is very little in the way of bus services; most of the trains are on radial lines running into London and are often inappropriate. As the Minister may know from the package of departmental information given her about the population, a considerable proportion of people in the area are elderly and most of those do not drive or are very nervous of driving; they are certainly very nervous of driving and parking in the towns. In addition, there are many young families with children, especially farming families. That explains the relatively large number of village schools and, until recently, village shops and post offices, as well as village halls.
	Surrey is perceived by outsiders as green and wealthy, but the wealth is mixed and so is mobility. Life expectancy is higher than the national average, so all access problems are more applicable, as a recent Help the Aged survey pointed out. Of course, as the Minister knows, age brings increased demands on the national health service.
	Mole Valley is served by three hospitals in adjacent constituencies, none in mine; one of themEpsom hospitalis under threat, but that is a discussion for another time. In Mole Valley, there are two so-called cottage hospitals, one in Dorking and the other in Leatherhead.
	The Prime Minister recently paid the local area the honour of a visit to Leatherhead hospital. Sadly, I was unaware of his visit until after he returned to WestminsterI would have liked to join him at the hospital. No. 10 thoughtfully informed my hon. Friend the neighbouring Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), albeit too late for him to inform me. I was delighted 24 hours later to receive some apologies from No. 10, which were accepted, but I used the opportunity to request an audience, along with some of my colleagues, with the Prime Minister about the issues that I would have raised if I could have joined them. To date, the silence from No. 10 is significant but not golden.
	Both hospitals have evolved to meet the need to act as intermediaries between the GPs and their clinics and the three general hospitals. Both hospitals work closely with the many GP practices in their surrounding areas. For example, Leatherhead is run as an independent, not-for-profit unit giving services, including clinical assessment, especially for heart conditions, X-rays, audiology and dentistry for handicapped, abused and difficult children. I had hoped to use the opportunity to expand on the latter part by bringing in the private sector to pay for refurbishments and so on, and perhaps establish a charity to provide dentistryto put on my dental hatin the hospital if possible.
	The hospital is effectively a polyclinic without GP servicesthe latter are not necessary, as the GPs are close by in Leatherhead and the surrounding villages. GPs in Mole Valley have coagulatedif I may use that medical termto form what I call mini-polyclinics. By forming partnerships with up to a dozen doctors, those clinics can offer the usual paramedical services as well as extras such as physiotherapy, minor surgery and, in the case of the Medwyn GP clinic in Dorking, dentistryas long as one's Polish English is effective. Several of those group practices can thus run satellite services in many villages. They are generally also dispensing practices, and that makes them just financially viable and means that the village patients do not have to travel into the bigger villages with their prescriptions. The towns and bigger villages are served by many excellent and modern pharmacies, which have encompassed new demands and requirements from patients, local GPs and the Government.
	All those relationships of GPs, clinics, local hospitals and pharmacies have evolved co-operatively to meet evolving patient needs, and have encompassed developing medical science as well as requests from the Government. Any Government changes, such as polyclinics and changes in pharmacies that affect dispensing GP practices, may be applicable in inner-city areas such as the Minister's constituency, but must not be applied prescriptively to rural and semi-rural areas such as my constituency.
	I guess that it may be convenient for the Minister and even the Prime Minister to call Leatherhead hospital a polyclinic. However, to expand that to include general medical practitioner services, when they are being provided close by, or to impose a full blown polyclinic anywhere else in or close to Mole Valley, would be short-sighted and deeply damaging to NHS services, Mole Valley towns and especially villages. To quote one of the many deeply worried doctors,
	a polyclinic would act like a black hole drawing all in and forcing closure of GP clinics especially in the villages.
	Surrey villages have been and are under great threatseveral village shops have gone. Recently, 25 per cent. of sub-post offices have closed and village halls have been hurt by the recent licensing legislation. Polyclinics and changes in the pharmacy rules could especially hurt GP services in satellite villages.
	A recent speculative bid for a new pharmacy, ostensibly serving several villages east of Dorking, was carefully assessed and rejected by NHS regulators. The key reason for rejection was that the demand for prescription medicines was being met by dispensing GPs in the village satellite clinics. The presence of a new pharmacy in the villages would have disturbed the financial balance of those surgeries. Some or all would either curtail their hours or force closure for economic reasons. To add to this, there was severe doubt whether the proposed pharmacy would have been viable. The end result would have been a pharmacy that would have killed off some of the GP services and GP clinics and then died itself for economic reasons. The result in a few short months would have been disaster for those villages. Fortunately, the decision was a refusal. It would be helpful if these dispensing pharmacies were able to provide over-the-counter medicines and other minor pharmacy additions such as first-aid supplies, and I understand that the Government are considering that.
	I am asking the Minister to accept that a rigid application of the new distance parameters for pharmacies would be severely damaging in rural and semi-rural areas. Similarly, I hope she and her Department will accept that polyclinics with GP services in areas such as mine would damage a delicate and evolved environmental balance serving the national health service, and that that would result in poorer services for patients. My GPs will be keen to learn of the Minister's response, and if they are unhappy I suspect they will ask me to ask her whether I and one or two representatives might see her to expand on anything that comes out of today's debate.
	These clinics are major employers, particularly in the villages, and they serve many who would find travelling for NHS care an enormous problem. I would be delighted if the Minister used this chance to reassure the concerned GPs and their patients, because if she does not do so she will be deepening an already deep fear among many people who loyally serve the NHS and who use it.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
	Housing and Regeneration Act 2008
	Crossrail Act 2008

GP/PHARMACY SERVICES (MOLE VALLEY)

Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.

Dawn Primarolo: I congratulate the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) on securing the debate. It is a pleasure to be present this evening. I shall go straight to the heart of his two major points on dispensing GPs and GP-led health centresor, as he called them and as they are often referred to in London, polyclinics. I hope that I will be able to reassure him, his constituents and those GPs who have been making representations to him that they should put aside their worst fears and instead embrace the agenda that he has outlined and that the Government are taking forward.
	In his comments on dispensing GPs, the hon. Gentleman graphically laid out the complexities and differences in his constituency. Of course, if we compare it with, for example, my constituency of Bristol, South, his first proposition that one size does not fit all across the country is absolutely right, and that is precisely the Government's view. In looking at the provision of health services, it is important to take account of the needs and the location of the services in order to best serve patients in terms of quality and access to those services.
	As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Government's White Paper, Pharmacy in England: Building on StrengthsDelivering the Future, published on 3 April, set out our future proposals for expanding high-quality pharmaceutical services and developing the role of pharmacists as a leading clinical profession within the primary care team. He will know from my written ministerial statement of 17 July that next month we intend to publish our further consultation on the structural changes for the pharmaceutical services, which will run through the autumn.
	Regulations governing dispensing by GPs have been in place since 1912, and despite some changes in April 2005 to implement measures agreed between pharmacy and medical representative bodies, they have not substantially changed for almost a century. A general precept adhered to not only by this Government, but by all Governments, is that doctors prescribe medicines and pharmacists dispense them. However, the hon. Gentleman alluded to the fact that community pharmacy is not always viable in all parts of the country, particularly rural areas. Patients need to receive their NHS-prescribed medicines promptly and efficiently, and that is where dispensing GPs can play a vital role.
	I say clearly to the hon. Gentleman that the Government recognise the importance of the role of the dispensing GP and do not propose to end it; there is no question of the Government's advancing an agenda that is about disposing of the services of dispensing GPs. I know that some dispensing GPs have expressed doubts about their future. I hope that my clear statements today will show that it is not, and never has been, the Government's intention to disband or remove the services of dispensing GPs.
	However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that the system of GP dispensing contains anomalies and inconsistencies, and we want to seek views on how to deal with that. I stress the words seek views, because there is no predetermination involved, and we have made no suggestion that GP dispensing will cease. We have also made it clear that in examining some of the problems and anomalies, which GPs themselves identify, it will be vital to consult. That is the case precisely for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman so clearly and correctly identified in respect of understanding the geography and the services that are in place.
	I move on to the question of super-surgeriespolyclinicsand GP-led services. I am told by Surrey primary care trust that there are no plans to have any major new primary care developments in the area. However, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that that might not please all his constituents, given that the public have told us that enabling them to see a GP at a time that is more convenient to themfor example, at weekends or in the eveningsis their No. 1 priority in improving the NHS further. It is also true that Surrey PCT has more patients who are dissatisfied with the office hours opening times than anywhere else.

Paul Beresford: I thank the Minister for letting me respond to that specific point. Interestingly, the GPs in my constituency are clear about the fact that they have reacted positively by expanding their hoursthat includes weekend openings.

Dawn Primarolo: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, because, so far, 55 per cent. of the local GPs77 out of 139are offering extended opening hours. None the less, that leaves almost 50 per cent. of his constituents outside such arrangements. The point that he makes is that the investment in and the dialogue with the PCT and the GPs is about enhancing and developing services, not cutting back on the services that are available.
	I confirm once more that the guiding principle behind GP health centres is the wish to provide additional ways of accessing GP servicesprecisely the sort of things that the hon. Gentleman mentioned in his contribution. I am more than happy to echo the point that he made that that is best planned and delivered by agreement and in co-operation with the health professionalsGPs and othersin his constituency. The most important thing is that his constituents get the best quality of care and the best access to care.
	In response to the two points that the hon. Gentleman made, I repeat that, first, there will be no requirement or any forced solutions in the development of GP-led centres or polyclinics in his constituency, but there will be continuing dialogue between the GPs, the PCT and other health professionals on how to deliver the best services; and, secondly, there is no predetermined conclusion and no desire to abolish GP dispensing. The White Paper raises questions about the accessibility of pharmacies and how we can iron out any problems in the current rules. It may not be a problem in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but there are examples around the country of dispensing GPs being on the opposite side of the road to a pharmacy. Such anomalies need to be resolved.

Paul Beresford: I accept the Minister's point about other areas. The difficulty in my villages is that a new pharmacy, on its arrival, will kill off the satellite dispensing pharmacies in the villageswe have seen some speculators try thatand then die off itself, leaving the villagers without pharmacy or GP services.

Dawn Primarolo: It is obviously not the Government's intention to drive GP services out of areas, given that we have announced that we will invest an extra 250 million in taking those services into areas that are under-doctored.
	I am aware that applications have been made for two pharmacies, and those are under consideration. The White Paper attempts to ensure that we have the most appropriate services for the patient, delivered by the best-qualified provider. However, in encouraging that breadth of professionals in an area, we do not want to remove the GP service, for instance.
	The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point out that, particularly in the areas represented by him and by some of my hon. Friends, it will be very important to consider the provisions for quality of care and for access. The White Paper says not that pharmacies offer all the solutions, but that they have the potential in certain parts of the country to open up the health service. We need to find a route whereby we can do that, where appropriate, without undermining quality provision where it exists. I know that he will agree that we need rules that are consistent and fair and that work to the best advantage of the patient and of the quality of care. That is what we are proposing to do and I see no reason why that should threaten the viability of GPs offering excellent medical services.
	I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my reassurance and await the publication in the next month or so of the next stage of the consultation. If there are outstanding issues that he wants to raise with me, I will be happy to see him.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Seven o'clock.